alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 11

- 00015

- CR EX PARTE ROLAND V. GARCES From the 290th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010

- CR

- 12831 Honorable Andrew Carruthers , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 1, 2011
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Roland V. Garces, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the denial of his pre

- trial motion to reduce his $75,000 bail. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
A NALYSIS Garces is charged with assault

– family violence (second offense), with enhancements alleging two prior felony assault convictions involving family violence which make him an habitual offender. Pre

- trial bail of $75,000 was set, and Garces moved to reduce the bail amount
based on an affidavit of non

- prosecution signed by the complainant, his daugh ter Eloisa. After an evidentiary hearing at which Garces’s daughter and mother testified, the court denied Garces’s motion to reduce his bail. Garces appealed.04

- 11

- 00015

- CR

- 2

- On March 16, 2011, we issued an opinion holding there is no constitutional or statutory provis ion that authorizes a direct appeal of an interlocutory order on a motion to reduce bail; therefore, we lack jurisdiction over such an appeal. Sanchez v. State , No. 04

- 10

- 00891

- CR, 2011 WL 915589, at *4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio March 16, 2011, no pet.) (cit ing Abbott v. State , 271 S.W.3d 694, 696

- 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)); see also Apolinar v. State , 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We acknowledged that Rule 31 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure contemplates the filing of a notice of appeal from an order in a bail proceeding, but recognized that a rule of appellate procedure does not create appellate jurisdiction where none exists. Sanchez , 2011 WL 915589, at *3 (internal citations omi tted). The proper vehicle for a defendant to challenge excessive bail is a pre

- trial application for writ of habeas corpus, which, if denied, may then be appealed. Id. at *3

- 4. As in Sanchez , we decline to construe Garces’s motion to reduce bond as a pr e - trial application for writ of habeas corpus. See id. at *4 (record did not show motion to reduce bond was treated as habeas application by the parties or trial court). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 1 T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43. 2(f).
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 Although the question of jurisdiction was not briefed by the State, we must determine as a preliminary matter whether we have jurisdiction to decide the merits of an appeal. See State v. Roberts , 940 S.W.2d 655, 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), overruled on o ther grounds by State v. Medrano , 67 S.W.3d 892, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned, Kevin G. Wills, Executive Vice President of Finance and Chief Accounting Officer of Saks
Incorporated (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 29, 2006 (the
Report).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:



| | 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 results of operations of the Company
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 6th day of September, 2006.



|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kevin G. Wills                                              
|Kevin G. Wills                                                  
|Executive Vice President of Finance and Chief Accounting
Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Saks Incorporated
and will be retained by Saks Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

904 

CA 14-00359 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

ALI R. ABDULNABI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

 

MARCUS & CINELLI, LLP, WILLIAMSVILLE (DAVID P. MARCUS OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

LEWIS JOHS AVALLONE AVILES, LLP, ISLANDIA (DANIEL A. BARTOLDUS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Shirley

Troutman, J.), entered November 25, 2013. The order, among other

things, denied the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages

based on defendant’s alleged breach of an insurance policy issued by

defendant to plaintiff covering real property owned by plaintiff. 

Plaintiff submitted a claim to defendant for fire loss, and defendant

refused to pay the claim on the ground that, inter alia, plaintiff’s

intentional conduct caused the fire.

We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion

for summary judgment. An insurer denying coverage based on the

intentional ignition or procurement of a fire by the insured must

establish “either that the fire was intentionally set or that [the

insured] had a financial motive to destroy his [or her] property for

the insurance proceeds” (Van Nevius v Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. [appeal

No. 1], 280 AD2d 947, 947 [emphasis added]). Here, in the context of

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, if the evidence “ ‘indicates

that plaintiff[’s] premises may have been damaged by arson and that

plaintiff[] may have had a motive to see the[] property destroyed by

fire,’ ” a plaintiff-insured’s motion for summary judgment should be

denied (Benjaminov v Republic Ins. Group, 241 AD2d 473, 474; see

R.C.S. Farmers Mkts. Corp. v Great Am. Ins. Co., 56 NY2d 918, 920). 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

party, as we must (see Esposito v Wright, 28 AD3d 1142, 1143), we

conclude that plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden of

establishing that the fire was not intentionally set (see generally

Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). We further conclude
-2- 904 

CA 14-00359 

that, although plaintiff met his initial burden of establishing that

he did not have a financial motive to destroy the property for the

insurance proceeds, defendant raised a triable issue of fact in that

respect (see generally id.).

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
### Emergency assessment of post-fire debris-flow hazards for the 2013 Springs Fire, Ventura County, California

By: Dennis M. Staley**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141001

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report** 
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 1306.14 Labeling of substances and filling of prescriptions. ( a ) The pharmacist filling a written or emergency oral prescription for a controlled substance listed in Schedule II shall affix to the package a label showing date of filling, the pharmacy name and address, the serial number of the prescription, the name of the patient, the name of the prescribing practitioner, and directions for use and cautionary statements, if any, contained in such prescription or required by law.
( b ) If the prescription is filled at a central fill pharmacy, the central fill pharmacy shall affix to the package a label showing the retail pharmacy name and address and a unique identifier, (*i.e.* the central fill pharmacy's DEA registration number) indicating that the prescription was filled at the central fill pharmacy, in addition to the information required under paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply when a controlled substance listed in Schedule II is prescribed for administration to an ultimate user who is institutionalized: *Provided,* That: ( 1 ) Not more than 7-day supply of the controlled substance listed in Schedule II is dispensed at one time;
( 2 ) The controlled substance listed in Schedule II is not in the possession of the ultimate user prior to the administration;
( 3 ) The institution maintains appropriate safeguards and records regarding the proper administration, control, dispensing, and storage of the controlled substance listed in Schedule II; and
( 4 ) The system employed by the pharmacist in filling a prescription is adequate to identify the supplier, the product, and the patient, and to set forth the directions for use and cautionary statements, if any, contained in the prescription or required by law.
( d ) All written prescriptions and written records of emergency oral prescriptions shall be kept in accordance with requirements of § 1304.04(h) of this chapter.
( e ) Where a prescription that has been prepared in accordance with section 1306.12(b) contains instructions from the prescribing practitioner indicating that the prescription shall not be filled until a certain date, no pharmacist may fill the prescription before that date.
[36 FR 13368, July 21, 1971, as amended at 37 FR 15921, Aug. 8, 1972. Redesignated at 38 FR 26609, Sept. 24, 1973, as amended at 62 FR 13965, Mar. 24, 1997; 68 FR 37410, June 24, 2003; 72 FR 64930, Nov. 19, 2007]
# m8890.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 22.06.2018 C(2018) 4047 final To the notifying party: Subject : Case M.8890 - BNP PARIBAS / ABN AMRO BANK LUXEMBOURG Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1 )( b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 24 May 2018 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which BNP Paribas ("BNPP", France) acquire s within the meaning of Article 3(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of t he whole of ABN AMRO Bank (Luxembourg) S.A. ("ABN AMRO Bank Luxembourg", Luxembourg) by way of purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - BNPP: active worldwide in retail banking and services as well as corporate and institutional banking, - ABN AMRO Bank Luxembourg: active in private banking. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5 ( c ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission (Signed) Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 186 , 31.5.2018 , p. 26 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
§ 1500.8 Program income. ( a ) *Governmental revenues.* Permit fees are governmental revenue and not program income. (See 2 CFR 200.307(c)).
( b ) *Use of program income.* The default use of program income for EPA awards is addition even if the amount of program income the non-Federal entity generates exceeds the anticipated amount at time of the award of the assistance agreement. Unless the terms of the agreement provide otherwise, recipients may deduct costs incidental to the generation of program income from gross income to determine program income, provided these costs have not been charged to any Federal award. (See 2 CFR 200.307(b)). The program income shall be used for the purposes and under the conditions of the assistance agreement. (See 2 CFR 200.307(e)(2)).
( c ) *Brownfields Revolving Loan.* To continue the mission of the Brownfields Revolving Loan fund, recipients may use EPA grant funding prior to using program income funds generated by the revolving loan fund. Recipients may also keep program income at the end of the assistance agreement as long as they use these funds to continue to operate the revolving loan fund or some other brownfield purpose as outlined in their respective closeout agreements.
( d ) *Other revolving loan programs.* Recipients of EPA funding for other revolving loan fund programs may use EPA grant funding prior to using program income funds generated by the revolving loan fund. Recipients may also keep program income at the end of the assistance agreement as long as they use these funds to continue to operate the revolving loan fund or some other authorized purpose as outlined in their closeout agreement. This paragraph (d) does not apply to EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs which are subject to their own regulations.
[85 FR 61574, Sept. 30, 2020]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7512-7513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3236]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, 
as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, Bo. Encarnacion 127 Km 
19.1, Tallaboa-Penuelas, PR 00624, has been approved to gauge and 
accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs 
purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 
151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory 
analyses and gauger services should request and receive written 
assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or 
gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the 
specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved 
to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by 
calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bad9d8ca94d6dbd8d2cbfaded2c994ddd5cc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="224140520c4e43404a5362464a510c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed below for a 
complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.

[[Page 7513]]

    http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on 
September 15, 2009. The next triennial inspection date will be 
scheduled for September 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Malana, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: February 4, 2010.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-3236 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IV 

House Calendar No. 5 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 95 

[Report No. 109–6] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 310) to increase the penalties 

for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions 

against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane material, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2005 

Mrs. CAPITO, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

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

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 310) to increase 

the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane material, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 

3 order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 310) to in4 crease the penalties for violations by television and radio 

5 broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of 
2 

HRES 95 RH 

1 obscene, indecent, and profane material, and for other 

2 purposes. The bill shall be considered as read. The pre3 vious question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 

4 and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 

5 intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the 

6 bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

7 ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy 

8 and Commerce; (2) an amendment printed in the report 

9 of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, 

10 if offered by Representative Upton of Michigan or his des11 ignee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 

12 point of order or demand for division of the question, shall 

13 be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable 

14 for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the pro15 ponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 

16 with or without instructions. 

House Calendar No. 5 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 95 

[Report No. 109–6] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 310) 

profane material, and for other purposes. against transmission of obscene, indecent, and vision and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions to increase the penalties for violations by teleFEBRUARY 15, 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
# EUR-Lex - 31992R0652 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31992R0652

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 652/92 of 16 March 1992 amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No 147/91 defining and fixing the tolerance for quantity losses of agricultural products in public intervention storage **

*
Official Journal L 070 , 17/03/1992 P. 0005 - 0005 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 41 P. 0093 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 41 P. 0093 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 652/92 of 16 March 1992 amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No 147/91 defining and fixing the tolerance for quantity losses of agricultural products in public intervention storage

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3472/90 of 27 November 1990 laying down the factors to be taken into consideration in the annual accounts for the financing of intervention measures in the form of public storage by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas given the time necessary for processing leaf tobacco into processed tobacco it is possible that at the end of the financial year some quantities will still be undergoing processing; whereas, for the purpose of calculating allowable losses, the percentage must apply to all the quantities processed during the financial year, including those brought into use during the previous financial year;

Whereas it is therefore necessary to amend Commission Regulation (EEC) No 147/91 (2) Article 2 (2) second paragraph to clarify the method of application of the specific coefficient for tobacco in circumstances where processing is undertaken and concluded during different exercises;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the EAGGF Committtee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The following text is added to the second subparagraph of Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 147/91:

'Moreover in the case of tobacco processing the percentage shall apply to the total quantities brought into use and processed in the course of the exercise in addition to the quantities brought into use during the previous exercise and processed during the current exercise'.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 January 1990. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 March 1992.

For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 337, 4. 12. 1990, p. 3.

(2) OJ No L 17, 23. 1. 1991, p. 9.
#### § 901.930 Debarring official (Department of Energy supplement to government-wide definition at 2 CFR 180.930).

The Debarring Official for the Department of Energy, exclusive of NNSA, is the Director, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, DOE. The Debarring Official for NNSA is the Director, Office of Acquisition and Supply Management, NNSA.
Current Directory: products/new_jersey

```
Welcome to GAP
```