alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2020077EN.01002701.xml

| 13.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 77/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 77/27

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1295 of 1 August 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1469 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 204 of 2 August 2019
  )

On page 22, in recital 1:

for:

‘The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on the exporting producer subject to the current review investigation, CJSC Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant, now named LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (“the applicant” or “Interpipe”) was 25,1 %.’,

read:

‘The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on the exporting producer subject to the current review investigation, CJSC Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant, now named LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and PJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (“the applicant” or “Interpipe”) was 25,1 %.’;

on page 24, in recital 21:

for:

‘During the review investigation period, Interpipe had two fully-owned and controlled exporting producers (“the manufacturing entities”), LLC Interpipe Niko Tube (“NIKO”) and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (“NTRP”).’,

read:

‘During the review investigation period, Interpipe had two fully-owned and controlled exporting producers (“the manufacturing entities”), LLC Interpipe Niko Tube (“NIKO”) and PJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (“NTRP”).’;

on page 27 of OJ L 204, 2.8.2019, in Article 1, as corrected on page 100 of OJ L 261, 14.10.2019:

for:

‘The entry concerning LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP) in the table of Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1469 shall be replaced by the following:

| “LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP) | 8,1 % | A743”’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

“LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP)

8,1 %

A743”’

read:

‘The entry concerning LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and PJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP) in the table of Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1469 shall be replaced by the following:

| “LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and PJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP) | 8,1 % | A743”’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

“LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and PJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP)

8,1 %

A743”’

---
a50369455ex10-2.htm


EXHIBIT 10.2







iParty Corp.







WRITTEN SUMMARY OF RENEWED ONE-YEAR PART-TIME CONSULTING ARRANGEMENT 


WITH MR. VASSALLUZZO







June 6, 2012

















     iParty Corp. shall renew its engagement of Joseph Vassalluzzo to provide consulting services on a part-time basis over a period beginning on June 10, 2012 (the date of termination of the prior year's arrangement) and ending on June 6, 2013, to iParty's senior management, in particular iParty's Chairman and CEO, Sal Perisano, with respect to various retail, operational, strategic, real estate and store location issues, as may from time to time be necessary and appropriate. Such services shall on occasion require Mr. Vassalluzzo's presence at iParty's corporate headquarters in Dedham, Massachusetts and/or current or proposed store location sites, principally in New England and Florida. On or before the end of the period commencing on June 10, 2012, and ending on June 6, 2013, iParty Corp. shall pay Mr. Vassalluzzo one or more payments not to exceed $61,800 cash for services rendered over the period, with such services to be earned at a rate of $5,150 per month.
EXHIBIT
      A

    


    BILL
      OF SALE 

    


    OW
      Holdings, Inc., a Wyoming corporation (“Seller”), in consideration of the mutual
      promises contained in the Asset Purchase Agreement dated February 28, 2007
      (the
“APA”) by and between Seller and Sitestar Corporation, a Nevada corporation,
      (“Buyer”), does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto Buyer substantially
      all it assets as more particularly described in the APA (the “Acquired Assets”),
      excepting only those assets described in the APA as “Excluded Assets”.


    


    TO
      HAVE
      AND TO HOLD THE SAME unto the Buyer, its successors and assigns
      forever.

    


    And
      Seller, for itself and its successors and assigns, does hereby covenant and
      agree to and with Buyer, its successors and assigns, that Seller is the lawful
      owner of the Acquired Assets and has good right to sell the same as aforesaid;
      that the same are free from all encumbrances, and, except as provided in the
      APA, that Seller will warrant and defend the sale of the Acquired Assets hereby
      made unto the Buyer, its successors and assigns, forever against all and every
      person or persons whomsoever, lawfully claiming or to claim the
      same.

    


    This
      conveyance is without warranty either express or implied of any kind including
      any warranty of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose except
      as
      may be expressly set forth in the APA referred to herein.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Seller has caused these presents to be executed and
      delivered on and as of February 28, 2007.

     

     

    
      	 	
              OW
                Holdings, Inc. 

              


              By
                ________________________________

               

              Its:
                President
§ 0.203 Reporting suspected misconduct. ( a ) An employee shall immediately report to his or her supervisor, to any management official, or to the applicable Office of Inspector General: ( 1 ) Any information that the employee reasonably believes indicates a possible offense against the United States by an employee of the Department or any other individual working on behalf of the Department, including, but not limited to, bribery; fraud; perjury; conflict of interest; misuse of funds, government purchase or employee travel credit cards, equipment, or facilities; and other conduct which is prohibited by title 18 of the United States Code;
( 2 ) Any suspected violation of a statute, rule, or regulation, including this part and the regulations referenced in section 0.103 of this part;
( 3 ) Any instance in which another person inside or outside the federal government uses or attempts to use undue influence to induce an employee to do or omit to do any official act in derogation of his official duty; and,
( 4 ) Any information that the employee reasonably believes indicates the existence of an activity constituting: ( i ) Mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, or abuse of authority;
( ii ) A substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety;
( iii ) A threat to the integrity of programs and operations relating to the Department; or
( iv ) A violation of merit systems principles or a prohibited personnel practice as described in 5 U.S.C. 2301 and 2302.
( b ) Bureau counsel who, during the course of providing advice to or representation of a bureau, acquire information of the type described in paragraph (a) of this section, shall report the information to the reporting employee's supervisor, the Chief or Legal Counsel, or the Deputy General Counsel, who shall report such information to the relevant Inspector General.
( c ) This section does not cover matters addressed through employee grievances, equal employment opportunity complaints, Merit Systems Protection Board appeals, classification appeals, or other matters for which separate, formal systems have been established.
#### Carmela Patti, Appellant, v Town of North Hempstead et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[806 NYS2d 93]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau *363County (DeMaro, J.), entered April 23, 2004, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Town of North Hempstead, Incorporated Village of Lake Success, and Anglican Episcopal Church of Saint Phillip and Saint James for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on a sidewalk abutting property owned by the defendant Anglican Episcopal Church of Saint Phillip and Saint James (hereinafter the Church). The plaintiff asserted that the defendant Town of North Hempstead and the defendant Incorporated Village of Lake Success owned or maintained the subject sidewalk. The evidence submitted by the Town and the Village in support of their respective motions for summary judgment demonstrated that neither had received prior written notice of the defective condition, establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Camenson v Town of N. Hempstead,*298 AD2d 543 [2002]; *Boscolo v County of Nassau,*229 AD2d 457 [1996]). The Church also established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the basis that it did not have a duty to maintain the sidewalk and did not create the allegedly dangerous condition *(see Vrabel v City of New York,*308 AD2d 443 [2003]; *Conlon v Village of Pleasantville,*146 AD2d 736 [1989]).

In opposition, the plaintiff’s speculative and unsupported contention that one of the defendants must have repaired the sidewalk where the accident occurred and therefore created the allegedly dangerous condition was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Amabile v City of Buffalo,*93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; *Boscolo v County of Nassau, supra; Devine v City of New York,*300 AD2d 532, 533 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Adams, J.P., Luciano, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Source: http://taxfoundation.org/article/state

- and

- local

- sales

- tax

- rates

- 2014 (retrievd on 08/29/2014)

## Median Property Tax Rates By State 1

Ranked highest to lowest by median property tax as percentage of home value [1]

1.) New Jersey

1.89% 2.) New Hampshire

1.86% 3.) Texas

1.81% 4.) Nebraska

1.76%

5.) Wisconsin

1.76% 6.) Illinois

1.73% 7.) Connecticut

1.63% 8.) Michigan

1.62%

9.) Vermont

1.59% 10.) North Dakota

1.42% 11.) Ohio

1.36% 12.) Rhode Island

1.35%

13.) Pennsylvania

1.35% 14.) Iowa

1.29% 15.) Kansas

1.29% 16.) South Dakota

1.28%

17.) New York

1.23% 18.) Maine

1.09% 19.) Minnesota

1.05% 20.) Massachusetts

1.04%

21.) Alaska

1.04% 22.) Florida

0.97% 23.) Washington

0.92% 24.) Missouri

0.91%

25.) Maryland

0.87% 26.) Oregon

0.87% 27.) Indiana

0.85% 28.) Nevada

0.84%

29.) Georgia

0.83% 30.) Montana

0.83% 31.) North Carolina

0.78% 32.) California

0.74%

33.) Oklahoma

0.74% 34.) Virginia

0.74% 35.) Arizona

0.72% 36.) Kentucky

0.72%

37.) Idaho

0.69% 38.) Tennessee

0.68% 39.) Colorado

0.6% 40.) Utah

0.6%

41.) Wyoming

0.58% 42.) New Mexico

0.55% 43.) Mississippi

0.52% 44.) Arkansas

0.52%

45.) South Carolina

0.5% 46.) West Virginia

0.49% 47.) District of

Columbia

0.46% 48.) Delaware

0.43%

49.) Alabama

0.33% 50.) Hawaii

0.26% 51.) Louisiana

0.18%

1 http://www.tax

- rates.org/taxtables/sales

- tax

- by

- state . Retrieved on 08/29/2014
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard W. Torturica, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[805 NYS2d 750]

*1041Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Lee Clary, J.), rendered March 8, 1991. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and petit larceny.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from an order denying his CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment in appeal No. 2 and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to disqualify the District Attorney’s office because the victim’s boyfriend is related to an employee of that office. We reject that contention inasmuch as defendant failed to establish “actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence” *(Matter of Schumer v Holtzman,*60 NY2d 46, 55 [1983]; *see People v Martin,*2 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 630 [2004]). We reject defendant’s further contention that reversal is required based on the court’s charge with respect to circumstantial evidence. Although the court failed to use the words “moral certainty,” the court otherwise properly instructed the jury with respect to the burden of proof in this circumstantial evidence case *(see People v Sanchez,*61 NY2d 1022, 1024 [1984]). The contention of defendant concerning prosecutorial misconduct on summation is not preserved for our review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, we reject his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct *(see People v Rubin,*101 AD2d 71, 78 [1984], *lv denied*63 NY2d 711 [1984]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Finally, defendant received effective assistance of counsel *(see generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present— Green, J.P., Gorski, Smith, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
EXHIBIT
      32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350











We, each hereby certify to the best of
our knowledge that the Amended Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q/A of Gateway Tax
Credit Fund II, Ltd. for the period ended September 30, 2008 containing the
financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)) and that
information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Gateway.








/s/ Ronald M.
      Diner
              Ronald
      M. Diner
              President
              Raymond
      James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.
              (the
      Managing General Partner)
              November
      24, 2008/s/ Jonathan
      Oorlog
              Jonathan
      Oorlog
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer
              Raymond
      James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.
              (the
      Managing General Partner)
              November
      24, 2008
§ 53.6011-4 Requirement of statement disclosing participation in certain transactions by taxpayers. ( a ) *In general.* If a transaction is identified as a *listed transaction* or a *transaction of interest* as defined in § 1.6011-4 of this chapter by the Commissioner in published guidance (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b ) of this chapter), and the listed transaction or transaction of interest involves an excise tax under chapter 42 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to private foundations and certain other tax-exempt organizations), the transaction must be disclosed in the manner stated in such published guidance.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to listed transactions entered into on or after January 1, 2003. This section applies to transactions of interest entered into on or after November 2, 2006.
[T.D. 9350, 72 FR 43154, Aug. 3, 2007]
PUBLIC LAW 113–90—MAR. 21, 2014 128 STAT. 1037 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4076: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Mar. 4, considered and passed House. 

Mar. 13, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–90 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To address shortages and interruptions in the availability of propane and other 

home heating fuels in the United States, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Home Heating Emergency Assistance Through Transportation Act of 2014’’ or the ‘‘HHEATT Act 

of 2014’’. 

SEC. 2. PROPANE AND HOME HEATING FUEL EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

a covered emergency exemption issued by the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration shall remain in effect until May 31, 2014, 

unless the Secretary of Transportation, after consultation with the 

Governors of affected States, determines that the emergency for 

which the exemption was provided ends before that date. 

(b) COVERED EMERGENCY EXEMPTION DEFINED.—In this section, 

the term ‘‘covered emergency exemption’’ means an exemption 

issued under section 390.23 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, 

or extended under section 390.25 of such title that— 

(1) was issued or extended during the period beginning 

on February 5, 2014, and ending on the date of enactment 

of this Act; and 

(2) provided regulatory relief for commercial motor vehicle 

operations providing direct assistance supporting the delivery 

of propane and home heating fuels. 

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in subsection (a) may 

be construed to prohibit the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from issuing or extending a covered emergency exemption 

beyond May 31, 2014, under other Federal law. 

Approved March 21, 2014. 

Termination 

date. 

Consultation. 

Determination. 

Home Heating 

Emergency 

Assistance 

Through 

Transportation 

Act of 2014. 

Mar. 21, 2014 

[H.R. 4076] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
§ 11.3 Definitions. Terms used are defined in 34 CFR 395.1, except that as used in this part, the following terms shall have the following meanings: ( a ) *Department of the Treasury controlled property* means any Federal building, land, or other real property owned, leased, or occupied by a bureau or office of the Department of the Treasury, of which the maintenance, operation, and protection is under the control of the Department of the Treasury.
( b ) The term *bureau* means any bureau or office of the Department of the Treasury and such comparable administrative units as may hereafter be created or made a part of the Department, and includes the Departmental Offices and the Office of Inspector General. The “head of the bureau” for the Departmental Offices is the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Administration).
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-5 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and
represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of
October 21, 2015, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-5 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the
Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By:

/s/ Sandra M. BroderickName:

Sandra M. BroderickTitle:

EVP Head of OperationsDate:

March 29, 2019By:

/s/ Andrew KangName:

Andrew KangTitle:

TreasurerDate:

March 29, 2019
1

McLellan, Warren

From: Boeing Customer Support [csd.boecom@boeing.com]

Sent: Wednesday, 20 April 2011 8:14 a.m.

Subject: Clarification to SB 767-57-0121 Rev 0 and 767-57-0121 IN 01 - Earl

FROM: THE BOEING COMPANY

TO: Airwork NZ (ANX)

[MESSAGE NUMBER:ANX-ANX-11-0026-02B] Boeing Response

MESSAGE DATE: 19 Apr 2011 1313 US PACIFIC TIME / 19 Apr 2011 2013 GMT

The following message is distributed to the following people at Air New Zealand:

Adrian S Earl

Field Service Base: BFSAKL

Service Category: Service Bulletin Model: 767 Series/Product: SB - Airplane 

Service Bulletin ATA: 5700-00

SUBJECT: Clarification to SB 767-57-0121 Rev 0 and 767-57-0121 IN 01 - Earl

REFERENCES:

/A/ 767-57-0121 IN 01

/B/ SB 767-57-0121 Rev 0

/C/ ANX-ANX-11-0026-01F

DESCRIPTION:

Air New Zealand is reviewing 767-57-0121 IN 01 in conjunction with SB 767-57-0121 Figs 

11 and 12. Air New Zealand are having difficulty in identifying exactly where step 

areas 7 and 8 sealant is to be applied.

ANZ request Boeing review the Ref /A/ and /B/ and provide clarification.

RESPONSE:

Steps 7 and 8 in Figures 11 and 12 of ref/B/ SB are to be applied to the outboard side 

of the rib. Applying sealant to the outboard side of the rib creates a fuel vapor 

barrier outboard of the engine. The sealant should be applied over the entire outboard 

surface of the rib to ensure fuel vapor can not leak into the space inboard of the 

rib.

If attachments are referred to, and are not present, please reply to this e-mail or 

contact your Boeing Field Service Representative.

Enhanced Controls Required?:No

Summary Notes:

Nick Yancey, Structures I

Service Bulletin Engineering - Everett

Ron Tropple - Manager

Commercial Aviation Services

The Boeing Company
#### In the Matter of City of Yonkers, Petitioner, v New York State Board of Real Property Services, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 913]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and RPTL *4641218 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Real Property Services, dated July 22, 2003, which established a final state equalization rate for the 2002 assessment roll of the City of Yonkers.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the determination is annulled, and the matter is remitted to the New York State Board of Real Property Services for a new hearing and determination consistent with *Matter of City of White Plains v New York State Bd. of Real Prop.*Servs. (18 AD3d 549 [2005]) and *Matter of Town of Mt. Kisco v New York State Bd. of Real Prop. Servs.*(23 AD3d 486 [2005] [decided herewith]). Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.