alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31989D0267 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31989D0267

**89/267/EEC: Commission Decision of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by Italy (Only the Italian text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 108 , 19/04/1989 P. 0022 - 0022 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by Italy (Only the Italian text is authentic) (89/267/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

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

Whereas, by letter of 26 July 1988, Italy sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC;

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

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

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

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

Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Italy.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 1989.

For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.
# L_2020324DE.01006501.xml

| 6.10.2020 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 324/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2020

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 324/65

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) 2018/848 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 30. Mai 2018 über die ökologische/biologische Produktion und die Kennzeichnung von ökologischen/biologischen Erzeugnissen sowie zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 834/2007 des Rates

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 150 vom 14. Juni 2018
  )

Seite 53, Artikel 53 Absatz 4

Anstatt:

„(4)   Der Kommission wird die Befugnis übertragen, ab 1. Januar 2025 gemäß Artikel 54 delegierte Rechtsakte zu erlassen, mit denen auf der Grundlage der Informationen über die Verfügbarkeit von ökologischen/biologischen Eiweißfuttermitteln für Geflügel und Schweine auf dem Unionsmarkt, die von den Mitgliedstaaten gemäß Absatz 6 dieses Artikels bereitgestellt werden oder in dem Bericht gemäß Absatz 7 dieses Artikels dargelegt werden, früher als zu dem in Anhang II Teil II Nummern 1.9.3.1 Buchstabe c und 1.9.4.2 Buchstabe c festgelegten Zeitpunkt die darin vorgesehenen Zulassungen zur Verwendung nichtökologischer/nichtbiologischer Eiweißfuttermittel für Geflügel und Schweine beendet oder über diesen Zeitpunkt hinaus verlängert werden.
  “

muss es heißen:

„(4)   Der Kommission wird die Befugnis übertragen, ab 1. Januar 2025 gemäß Artikel 54 delegierte Rechtsakte zu erlassen, mit denen auf der Grundlage der Informationen über die Verfügbarkeit von ökologischen/biologischen Eiweißfuttermitteln für Geflügel und Schweine, die von den Mitgliedstaaten gemäß Absatz 6 dieses Artikels bereitgestellt werden oder in dem Bericht gemäß Absatz 7 dieses Artikels dargelegt werden, die Zulassungen gemäß Anhang II Teil II Nummern 1.9.3.1 Buchstabe c und 1.9.4.2 Buchstabe c zur Verwendung nichtökologischer/nichtbiologischer Eiweißfuttermittel für Geflügel und Schweine vor dem 31. Dezember 2025 beendet oder über dieses Datum hinaus verlängert werden.
  “

---
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; Therapeutic Strategies for Cancer.
    Date: February 2-4, 2011.
    Time: 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Majed M. Hamawy, M.B.A., PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6116 Executive 
Boulevard, Room 8135, Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-594-5659, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#325f5a03020344725c5b5a1c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="721f1a43424304321c1b1a5c151d04">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; K99 and T32 Review.
    Date: February 22, 2011.
    Time: 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314.
    Contact Person: Sergei Radaev, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6116 Executive 
Boulevard, Room 8117, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-5655, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e291908386838794a28f838b8ecc8c8b8acc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4132332025202437012c20282d6f2f28296f262e37">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 28, 2010.
Anna P. Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-33285 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### Hydrology of the alluvium of the Arkansas River, Muskogee, Oklahoma, to Fort Smith, Arkansas

By: Harry H. TanakaJerrald R. HollowellJohn Joseph Murphy

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1809T

#### Links

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

#### Abstract

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.
[No. 38045-1-I.

Division One.

January 12, 1998.]

#### Patricia J. Parks, *Respondent,*v. Barbara Gay Jungemann, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-2-11940-1, Larry Jordan, J., entered March 20, 1995; January 18, 1996; January 22, 1996. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Agid, J., concurred in by "Webster and Baker, JJ.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 A0 39 4 . PAUL MURRAY v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 0 6
, Pau l M urray p l ed g u i l t y t o th ree co u n t s o f ch i ld m o l es tat i o n , fo r wh i ch
h e was s en t en ced t o t wen t y y ears t o s erv e i n p ri so n

. Si n ce t h at t i m e, M u rray h as fi l ed

n u m ero u s m o t i o n s wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt an d m u l ti p l e ap p eal s wi t h t h i s Co urt , al l o f

w h i ch were d i s m is s ed

. See Cas e No s

. A 1 1 A0 4 5 6
, A1 4 A0 56 8
, an d A1 5 D0 0 2 9

. M u rray n o w s eek s a d i rect ap p eal fro m t h e t ri al co urt ’ s J u ly 1 8
, 2 0 1 4 o rd er d i s m i s s i n g h i s “ Mo t i o n t o Set As i d e Sen t en ce,” t h ro u g h a no t i ce o f ap p eal fi l ed o n Sep tem b er 1 5 , 2 0 1 4. 1 W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct io n

. To b e t i m el y , a n o ti ce o f ap p eal m u s t b e fi l ed wi th i n 3 0 d ay s o f e n t r y o f t h e

o rd er o n ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Th e p ro per an d t i m el y f i l i n g o f a n o t i ce

o f ap p eal i s an ab s o l u t e req u i rem en t t o co n fer ju ri s d i ct i o n o n th is Co u rt

. Ro wl a n d v. S t a t e , 2 6 4 G a. 8 7 2
, 8 7 2 (1 ) (4 5 2 SE2 d 7 5 6 ) (1 9 9 5 ). Becau s e M u rray fi l ed h i s n o t i ce

o f ap peal 5 9 d ay s aft e r e n t r y o f t he o rd er h e s eek s t o ap p eal
, i t i s un t i m el y

. Acco rd in g ly , t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i on

.

1 In Cas e No

. A1 5 D0 0 2 9
, M u rray s o u g h t d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew of t h e s am e t ri al

co u rt o rd er. Hi s ap p l i cat i o n was d i s m i s s ed as u n t i m el y o n Sep t em

b er 2 2 , 2 0 1 4

. October 13, 2016C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/13/2016
§ 111.420 What requirements apply to repackaging and relabeling? ( a ) You may repackage or relabel dietary supplements only after quality control personnel have approved such repackaging or relabeling.
( b ) You must examine a representative sample of each batch of repackaged or relabeled dietary supplements to determine whether the repackaged or relabeled dietary supplements meet all specifications established in accordance with § 111.70(g).
( c ) Quality control personnel must approve or reject each batch of repackaged or relabeled dietary supplement prior to its release for distribution.
#### § 133.142 Gouda cheese.

Gouda cheese conforms to the definition and standard of identity and complies with the requirements for label declaration of ingredients prescribed for edam cheese by § 133.138, except that the minimum milkfat content is 46 percent by weight of the solids, as determined by the methods described in § 133.5 and the maximum moisture content is 45 percent by weight.

[48 FR 2744, Jan. 21, 1983]
# m8836.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.3.2018 C(2018) 1998 final To t he notifying part y Subject : Case M. 8 8 36 - 3I / SITS 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 1 March 2018 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which 3i Group Plc (The United Kingdom) , through Crown Bidco BV, acquire s within the meaning of Article 3(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over the whole of the undertaking Sits Holding BV (The Netherlands) , by way of purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: – 3i : investment manage ment focused on mid m arket private equity and infrast r ucture investments.3i invests in three core sectors: business and technology services, consumer and industrial. – Crown Bidco BV : vehicle company created for the purpose of this transaction – Sits: manufacture, under the name Royal Sanders, of personal care products, such as: bath and shower, skin care products, deo do rants and perfumes. It manufactures primarily for retailers and brand owners. It also owns a p o rt folio of branded care products which includes Van Gils, Sanicur and Odorex . 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 90 , 9 . 3 .2018 , p. 14 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APP EAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ALFONSO ALZAMORA,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D15-4136

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed March 11, 2016

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Jenifer M. Davis, Judge.

A lfonso Alzamora, Milton, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, A ssistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Alfonso Alzamora appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal

sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a ). We affirm, but

remand for the correction of scrivener’s errors.

Alzamora’s corrected judgment lists count 1 as “First Degree Mu rder,” but, as his

original judgment reflects, Alzamora was convicted of attempted first-degree murder of

a law enforcement officer. Additionally, Alzamora’s corrected sentence as to count 12 indicates that he has been convicted of a capital felony, and p rovides that he is serving

a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory term, pursuant to section 775.082(1), Florida

Statutes (1991). However, Alzamora was not convicted of a capi tal felony, but, rather, a

life felony, and his minimum mandatory sentence was imposed pur suant to section

775.0825. 1

AFFIRMED and REMANDED for correction of scrivener’s errors.

PALMER, ORFINGER and EV ANDER, JJ., concur.

1 Section 775.0825 was repealed in 1995. See ch. 95-184, § 18, at 1708, Laws of Fla. (eff. Oct. 1, 1995). This sentencing enhancement statu te was subsumed into the Law Enforcement Protection Act codified at section 775.0823. S ee ch. 95-184, § 17, at 1707-08, Laws of Fla. (eff. Oct. 1, 1995).
================================================================================

 EXHIBIT 32

                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 CirTran  Corporation on Form 10-QSB
for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  Iehab  Hawatmeh,  President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
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 result of operations of the Company.

November 14, 2007

                                            /s/ Iehab J. Hawatmeh
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Iehab J. Hawatmeh
                                            President, Chief Financial Officer



















--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 146.145 Orange juice from concentrate. ( a ) Orange juice from concentrate is the food prepared by mixing water with frozen concentrated orange juice as defined in § 146.146 or with concentrated orange juice for manufacturing as defined in § 146.153 (when made from mature oranges), or both. To such mixture may be added orange juice as defined in § 146.135, frozen orange juice as defined in § 146.137, pasteurized orange juice as defined in § 146.140, orange juice for manufacturing as defined in § 146.151 (when made from mature oranges and preserved by chilling or freezing but not by canning), orange oil, orange pulp, and one or more of the sweetening ingredients listed in paragraph (b) of this section. The finished orange juice from concentrate contains not less than 11.8 percent orange juice soluble solids, exclusive of solids of any added optional sweetening ingredients. It may be so treated by heat as to reduce substantially the enzymatic activity and the number of viable microorganisms.
( b ) The sweetening ingredients referred to in paragraph (a) of this section are sugar, sugar sirup, invert sugar, invert sugar sirup, dextrose, corn sirup, dried corn sirup, glucose sirup, dried glucose sirup.
( c ) The name of the food is “Orange juice from concentrate”. The words “from concentrate” shall be shown in letters not less than one-half the height of the letters in the words “orange juice”.
( d ) When orange juice from concentrate contains any optional sweetening ingredient as listed in paragraph (b) of this section, whether added directly as such or indirectly as an added ingredient of any orange juice product used, the label shall bear the statement “______ added”, the blank being filled in with the name or an appropriate combination of the names of the sweetening ingredients added. However, for the purposes of this section the name “sweetener” may be used in lieu of the specific name or names of the sweetening ingredients.
( e ) Wherever the name of the food appears on the label so conspicuously as to be easily seen under customary conditions of purchase, the statements specified in this section for naming the optional ingredients used shall immediately and conspicuously precede or follow the name of the food, without intervening written, printed, or graphic matter.
( f ) *Label declaration.* Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter.
[42 FR 14433, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 58 FR 2881, Jan. 6, 1993]
**Delaware**

**Delaware 02 Sussex**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dennis Bradley SUTTON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-4844.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 19, 2005.

Decided Sept. 30, 2005.

*233Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Windy C. Vena-ble, Writing and Research Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Bradley Sutton pled guilty to possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2000), and possession of seven firearms by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and the district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of forty months of imprisonment. Citing *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), Sutton appeals his sentence and contends that it violates the Sixth Amendment. The Government asserts that Sutton validly waived the right to appeal his sentence in the plea agreement. We agree with the Government and dismiss the appeal.

A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver is knowing and intelligent. *United States v. Brown,*232 F.3d 399, 402-03 (4th Cir.2000). To determine whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, we examine “the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as the accused’s educational background and familiarity with the terms of the plea agreement.” *United States v. General,*278 F.3d 389, 400 (4th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review de novo the question of whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal. *United States v. Blick,*408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.2005).

Our review of the plea agreement and the hearing conducted pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 leads us to conclude that Sutton knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. *See General,*278 F.3d at 400-01; *see also Blick,*408 F.3d at 169-73 (holding that plea agreement waiver of right to appeal that district court accepted prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), was not invalidated by change in law effected by that decision). Moreover, Sutton’s Sixth Amendment claim falls within the scope of the waiver. *See Blick,*408 F.3d at 169 n. 7 (concluding that “the [Supreme] Court’s use of the term ‘statutory maximum’ in *Blakely*and *Booker*does not alter the meaning of the language in the appeal waiver”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately *234presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*