alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31990R2344 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31990R2344

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 2344/90 of 24 July 1990 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3976/87 on the application of article 85 (3) of the treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices in the air transport sector **

*
Official Journal L 217 , 11/08/1990 P. 0015 - 0016 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2344/90 of 24 July 1990 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3976/87 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices in the air transport sector

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 87 thereof,

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

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

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 3976/87 (4) empowers the Commission to declare by way of regulation that the provisions of Article 85 (1) do not apply to certain categories of agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices;

Whereas these block exemptions were granted for a limited period, expiring on 31 January 1991, during which air carriers could adapt to the more competitive environment introduced by changes in the regulatory system applicable to intra-Community international air transport;

Whereas after that date there will still be a need for block exemptions for a further transitional period,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EEC) No 3976/87 is hereby amended as follows:

1. in Article 2 (2) a new indent is added reading as follows:

'- consultations on cargo rates,';

2. in Article 3, '31 January 1991' is replaced by '31 December 1992';

3. in Article 8, '30 June 1990' and '1 November 1989' are replaced by '31 December 1992' and '1 July 1992' respectively.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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 July 1990.

For the Council

The President

C. MANNINO

(1) OJ No C 258, 11. 10. 1989, p. 3.

(2) OJ No C 149, 18. 6. 1990.

(3) OJ No C 112, 7. 5. 1990, p. 17.

(4) OJ No L 374, 31. 12. 1987, p. 9.
§ 708.16 Duplicative actions under State or other law. ( a ) An employee may not file a complaint under this part if, with respect to the same facts, he chooses to pursue a remedy under State or other applicable law, including final and binding grievance-arbitration procedures, unless: ( 1 ) The complaint under State or other applicable law is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction;
( 2 ) The complaint was filed under 48 CFR part 3, subpart 3.9 and the Inspector General, after conducting an initial inquiry, determines not to pursue it; or
( 3 ) The employee has exhausted grievance-arbitration procedures pursuant to § 708.14, and issues related to alleged retaliation for conduct protected under § 708.5 remain.
( b ) Pursuing a remedy other than final and binding grievance-arbitration procedures does not prevent an employee from filing a complaint under this part.
( c ) An employee is considered to have filed a complaint under State or other applicable law if he files a complaint, or other pleading, with respect to the same facts in a proceeding established or mandated by State or other applicable law, whether such a complaint is filed before, concurrently with, or after a complaint is filed under this part.
( d ) If an employee files a complaint under State or other applicable law after filing a complaint under this part, the complaint under this regulation will be dismissed under § 708.18(c)(3).
Sanitized – Attachment 005 

Page 1 of 1
§ 835.603 Radiological areas and radioactive material areas. Each access point to radiological areas and radioactive material areas (as defined at § 835.2) shall be posted with conspicuous signs bearing the wording provided in this section. ( a ) *Radiation area.* The words “Caution, Radiation Area” shall be posted at each radiation area.
( b ) *High radiation area.* The words “Caution, High Radiation Area” or “Danger, High Radiation Area” shall be posted at each high radiation area.
( c ) *Very high radiation area.* The words “Grave Danger, Very High Radiation Area” shall be posted at each very high radiation area.
( d ) *Airborne radioactivity area.* The words “Caution, Airborne Radioactivity Area” or “Danger, Airborne Radioactivity Area” shall be posted at each airborne radioactivity area.
( e ) *Contamination area.* The words “Caution, Contamination Area” shall be posted at each contamination area.
( f ) *High contamination area.* The words “Caution, High Contamination Area” or “Danger, High Contamination Area” shall be posted at each high contamination area.
( g ) *Radioactive material area.* The words “Caution, Radioactive Material(s)” shall be posted at each radioactive material area.
[63 FR 59684, Nov. 4, 1998]
§ 104.5 General principles. ( a ) A nutritional quality guideline prescribes the minimum level or range of nutrient composition (nutritional quality) appropriate for a given class of food.
( b ) Labeling for a product which complies with all of the requirements of the nutritional quality guideline established for its class of food may state “This product provides nutrients in amounts appropriate for this class of food as determined by the U.S. Government,” except that the words “this product” are optional. This statement, if used, shall be printed on the principal display panel, and may also be printed on the information panel, in letters not larger than twice the size of the minimum type required for the declaration of net quantity of contents by § 101.7 of this chapter. Labeling of noncomplying products may not include any such statement or otherwise represent, suggest, or imply the product as being, in whole or in part, in compliance with a guideline.
( c ) A product bearing the statement provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, in addition to meeting the requirements of the applicable nutritional quality guideline, shall comply with the following requirements: ( 1 ) The label of the product shall bear the common or usual name of the food in accordance with the provisions of the guideline and §§ 101.3 and 102.5(a) of this chapter.
( 2 ) The label of the product shall bear nutrition labeling in accordance with §§ 101.2 and 101.9 of this chapter and all other labeling required by applicable sections of part 101 of this chapter.
( d ) No claim or statement may be made on the label or in labeling representing, suggesting, or implying any nutritional or other differences between a product to which nutrient addition has or has not been made in order to meet the guideline, except that a nutrient addition shall be declared in the ingredient statement.
( e ) Compliance with a nutrient level specified in a nutritional quality guideline shall be determined by the procedures and requirements established in § 101.9(g) of this chapter.
( f ) A product within a class of food for which a nutritional quality guideline has been established and to which has been added a discrete nutrient either for which no minimum nutrient level or nutrient range or other allowance has been established as appropriate in the nutritional quality guideline, or at a level that exceeds any maximum established as appropriate in the guideline, shall be ineligible to bear the guideline statement provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, and such a product shall also be deemed to be misbranded under the act unless the label and all labeling bear the following prominent and conspicuous statement: “The addition of ______ to (or “The addition of ______ at the level contained in) this product has been determined by the U.S. Government to be unnecessary and inappropriate and does not increase the dietary value of the food,” the blank to be filled in with the common or usual name of the nutrient(s) involved.
[42 FR 14327, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 63 FR 14818, Mar. 27, 1998; 81 FR 59131, Aug. 29, 2016]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50590 Conference Calendar

JUAN RUDY ENRIQUEZ Plaintiff-Appellant

v. A M STRINGFELLOW; JAMES PAUL KIEL, JR Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CV-261
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Rudy Enriquez, Texas prisoner # 227122, has appealed the district court’s order denying his F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In his § 1983 complaint, Enriquez challenged the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles’ procedures on due process and equal protection grounds. The district court dismissed Enriquez’s complaint. Enriquez timely appealed to this court, but thereafter, in November 2003, this court affirmed the district court’sjudgment. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 24, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-50590

2 Enriquez’s instant Rule 60(b) motion was filed in March 2006. In that motion, Enriquez asserted that newly discovered evidence proved that the district court’s judgment was manifestly unjust, that it was obtained through fraud, and that it had been satisfied. To the extent that Enriquez’s motion was brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) and (3), the district court found that the motion was time-barred. To the extent that Enriquez brought his motion under Rule 60(b)(5), the district court denied the motion on the grounds that the grounds for relief raised therein had previously been visited and decided on appeal by this court. Enriquez timely appealed the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. Enriquez contends that, since his fraud claim is based on the premise that there was a fraud perpetrated upon the court, it cannot be time-barred. His allegations donot rise tothe type ofegregious behavior thatwould warrant relief under Rule 60(b) for fraud upon the court. See Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. , 873 F.2d 869, 872 (5th Cir. 1989). To the extent that Enriquez uses the term “manifestly unjust” to invoke the “catch-all” provision of Rule 60(b)(6), he has not shown extraordinary circumstancesjustifying relieffrom thejudgment. See Bailey v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc. , 894 F.2d 157, 160 (5th Cir. 1990). Contrary to Enriquez’s assertions, the Supreme Court decision in Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78-83 (2005), has no bearing on Enriquez’s
case. Moreover, to the extent that Enriquez reiterates the arguments raised in his § 1983 complaint, those arguments are not properly before the c ourt. See Williams v. Chater, 87 F.3d 702, 705 (5th Cir. 1996). Enriquez has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion. See Gov’t Fin. Servs. One Ltd. P’ship v. Peyton Place, Inc. , 62 F.3d 767, 770 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court’s order is therefore AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - 31993D0439 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31993D0439

**93/439/EEC: Commission Decision of 30 June 1993 amending Council Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field as regards classical swine fever **

*
Official Journal L 203 , 13/08/1993 P. 0034 - 0034 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 51 P. 0181 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 51 P. 0181 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 30 June 1993 amending Council Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field as regards classical swine fever

(93/439/EEC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), as last amended by Directive 92/119/EEC (2), and in particular Article 5 (2) thereof,

Whereas classical swine fever is subject to notification in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Council Directive 82/894/EEC of 21 December 1982, on the notification of animal diseases within the Community (3), as last amended by Commission Decision 92/450/EEC (4);

Whereas Council Decision 80/1096/EEC (5), as last amended by Decision 91/686/EEC (6), introduced Community financial measures for the eradication of classical swine fever;

Whereas the Community's financial participation in accordance with the provisions of the said Decision shall be limited to measures carried out before 1 July 1992;

Whereas the measures applied to eradicate classical swine fever have improved the health status of the pig population in the territory of the Community;

Whereas, taking into account the progress made, it is necessary to apply emergency measures in the event of the occurrence of classical swine fever and within this context to add classical swine fever to the list of diseases of Article 3 (1) of Decision 90/424/EEC;

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 following indent shall be added to Article 3 (1) of Decision 90/424/EEC:

'- Classical swine fever'

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 June 1993.

For the Commission

René STEICHEN

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 224, 18. 8. 1990, p. 19.

(2) OJ No L 62, 15. 3. 1993, p. 69.

(3) OJ No L 378, 31. 12. 1982, p. 58.

(4) OJ No L 248, 28. 8. 1992, p. 77.

(5) OJ No L 325, 1. 12. 1980, p. 5.

(6) OJ No L 377, 31. 12. 1991, p. 15.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement  dated as of March 1, 2013,by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor,WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, RIALTOCAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB MasterServicer, NCB, FSB, as Co-op Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, asTrust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and U.S. BANK NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates WFRBS 2013-C12 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms usedherein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of thisAgreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1.            A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the periodfrom January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “ReportingPeriod”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period hasbeen made under my supervision, and

 

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

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank 

 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 319-320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33178]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Colorado Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of 
the Colorado Advisory Committee to the Commission will be held at 
Denver Place, 999-18th Street, Suite 215 Conference Room, Denver, CO 
80202

[[Page 320]]

and convene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, January 25, 2011. The purpose of the 
meeting is for the committee to discuss recent Commission and regional 
activities, discuss current civil rights issues in the State and plan 
future activities. The Committee will also be briefed by a 
representative yet to be determined.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by February 25, 2011. 
The address is Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 999--18th Street, Suite 
1380S, Denver, CO 80202. Comments may be e-mailed to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aecbccc1c6c1dceedbddcdcddc80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="690c0b0601061b291c1a0a0a1b470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Records generated by this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at 
the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both 
before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this 
advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office 
at the above e-mail or street address.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, on December 21, 2010.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2010-33178 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 200.322 Domestic preferences for procurements. ( a ) As appropriate and to the extent consistent with law, the non-Federal entity should, to the greatest extent practicable under a Federal award, provide a preference for the purchase, acquisition, or use of goods, products, or materials produced in the United States (including but not limited to iron, aluminum, steel, cement, and other manufactured products). The requirements of this section must be included in all subawards including all contracts and purchase orders for work or products under this award.
( b ) For purposes of this section: ( 1 ) “Produced in the United States” means, for iron and steel products, that all manufacturing processes, from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States.
( 2 ) “Manufactured products” means items and construction materials composed in whole or in part of non-ferrous metals such as aluminum; plastics and polymer-based products such as polyvinyl chloride pipe; aggregates such as concrete; glass, including optical fiber; and lumber.
( c ) Federal agencies providing Federal financial assistance for infrastructure projects must implement the Buy America preferences set forth in 2 CFR part 184.
[85 FR 49543, Aug. 13, 2020, as amended at 88 FR 57790, Aug. 23, 2023]
# T **racia** 

# Y

**. L** 
**ee**

A Professional Limited Liability Company

P.O. Box. 171022 Voice: 512.814.6167

Austin, Texas 78717 Facsimile: +1 512.271.680 6

Email: tlee@tleelaw.com

Mar ch 30 , 2015

VIA E

- FILE

Mr. Keith E. Hottle Fourth Court of Appeals

Cadena

- Reeves Justice Center 300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200 San Antonio, TX 78205

- 3037

Re: Ca se No. 04

- 15

- 00074

- CV ; Stacey Scott v. Larry Furrow and Keller Williams Legacy Group ; pending in the Fourth Court of Appeals

, San Antonio, Texas

Dear Mr. Hottle :

Please allow this correspondence to serve as notice of my appearance as counsel of record for Appellant Stacey Scott in the above

- referenced matter

.

Please take note that on March 26, 2015, Ms. Scott filed a Motion for New Trial pertaining to th e February 24, 2015 trial court judgment awarding attorney’s fees to Appellees. The filing of the Motion for New Trial extend s the appellate deadlines. However, in the interest of caution, and to comply with this Court ’s order of March 19,

2015 , Ms. Scott will file an amended notice of appeal with the trial court today.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and please let me know if you have any questions or concerns

.

Sincerely,

Tracia Y. Lee , PLLC By: Tracia Y. Lee

cc: Scott F. Cline (Via E

- service )
Thornton, Biechlin, Segrato, Reynolds & Guerra, L.C.
Fax: (210) 525

- 0666
Attorneys for Appellees Larry Furrow and Keller Williams Legacy Group ACCEPTED

04-15-00074-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

3/30/2015 1:03:57 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK
§ 1882.505 How are violations of this part determined for recipients who are individuals? An individual recipient is in violation of the requirements of this part if the Assistant Administrator for Procurement determines, in writing, that— ( a ) The recipient has violated the requirements of subpart C of this part; or
( b ) The recipient is convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT
No. 0 9- 10 31 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 01 35 0- CV-T-2 7- MAP LORENE YOU

NG, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us CARGILL JUI CE NORTH AMERICA, INC., f.n.a . Carg il l Ci tro -Am eri ca, In c., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee Cro ss Cla im an t, KC CROM W ELL, INC., f.n.a . Spa rta n P rem ie r, In c., d.b .a. Cit ru s Fo rce S ta ffi ng , Defen da nt Cro ss Defen da nt
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 9, 2 00 9)Befo re TJ OFLAT, BIRCH an d HULL, Cir cu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Thi s i s a p ers on al in

jury case. Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d d efen da nt
su m m ary jud gm en t o n the gro un d t ha t d efen da ntwas p la in ti ff’s s ta tu to ry em pl oyer
an d e nt it le d t o i m

m un ity fro m su itpu rs ua ntto Flo rid a’s W orke rs ’ Co m pe ns at io n Act. Pl ai nt iff

ap pe al s, co nt en di ng th atth e “ in te nt io na l t ort” ex cep ti on to su ch imm un it y ap pl ie s an d t ha t m at eri al is su es of f actrem ai n t o b e li ti ga te d re ga rd in g th atex cep ti on . W e d is ag ree, an d t he refo re af firm . The i nt en ti on al to rt e xc ep ti on do es no t ap pl y

forth e rea so ns st at edin th e d is tri ctco urt’s Dece m be r 15 , 20 08
or de r gr an ti ng ap pe ll ee s umm ary jud gm en t. AFFIR MED.

2
#### § 2701.503 Relation to other audit requirements.

Non-Federal entities that are not subject to the requirements of the Single Audit Act and that are performing projects under SBA awards will be required to submit copies of their audited financial statements for their most recently completed fiscal year. Costs associated with the auditing of a non-Federal entity's financial statements may be included in its negotiations for an indirect cost rate agreement in accordance with 2 CFR 200.425.