alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2225/2004

of 23 December 2004         

fixing the representative prices and the additional import duties for molasses in the sugar sector applicable from 24 December 2004         

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the market in sugar (1), and in particular Article 24(4) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The representative prices and the additional duties applying to imports of the products referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1422/95 are fixed in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 December 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 December 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

(2)OJ L 141, 24.6.1995, p. 12. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 79/2003 (OJ L 13, 18.1.2003, p. 4).

(3)OJ L 145, 27.6.1968, p. 12. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1422/95.

----

ANNEX

Representative prices and additional duties for imports of molasses in the sugar sector applicable from 24 December 2004

----

(1)  This amount replaces, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1422/95, the rate of the Common Customs Tariff duty fixed for these products.

(2)  For the standard quality as defined in Article 1 of amended Regulation (EEC) No 785/68.

----
#### Dixie Industrial Company *v.*Manly.

*Assumpsit. ■*

(Decided Dec. *21,*1911.

57 South. 49.)

*Assumpsit; Complaint.*— A count declaring in assumpsit that the plaintiff claims oí the defendant $500.00 due by account on the 1st day of December, 1908, is demurrable for failing to show, that the account declared on was due from the defendant to the plaintiff.

Appeal from Tallapoosa Circuit Court.

Heard, before Hon. S. L. Brewer.

Action by G. F. Manly against the Dixie Industrial Company on account. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Riddle, Ellis, Riddle & Pruett, for appellant.

The court erred in not sustaining demurrer to tbe count.— *Smythe v. ■Dothan F. & M.*Works, 52 South. 398. The defendant proved his pleas and was entitled to a ver*dict.*— ■Gilliland *& Son v. Martin.*

George A. Sorrell, for appellee.

Counsel discuss assignments of error, but without citation of authority.

de GRAFFENRIED, J.

In the case of *Smythe v. Dothan Foundry & Machine Co.,*166 Ala. 253, 52 South. 398, the Supreme Court uses the following language: “The first assignment of error is to the overruling of defendant’s demurrer to the first count of the complaint. The count is in these. words: ‘The plaintiff claims of the defendant $202.28, balance due on account, on, to wit, the 1st day of August, 1908.’ The ground of demurrer is that the count does not aver by whom the ac-. count is due. By reference to the form laid down in *366the Code (Code1907, p. 1195, No. 10) it will be noticed that the words ‘from him,’ in the form, are omitted in this count, so that the count does not show whether the account sued on is due by the defendant or some one else. The forms in our Code have reduced the allegations of the complaint to a minimum, and this court does not feel called upon to reduce them further by construction. * * * The demurrer should have been sustained.” ' ’

In the case now under consideration, the first count was in the following words: “The plaintiff claims of the defendant $500 due by account on the 1st day of December, 1908.” The defendant demurred to this count of the complaint on the ground that it “fails to show that account declared on was due from the defendant to the plaintiff.” The slightest comparison of the count set out in *Smythe v. Dothan Foundry & Machine Co., supra,*with the first count of the complaint in this case, will show that the two counts are identical. The ground of demurrer assigned to the first count of the complaint-in *Smythe v. Dothan Foundry & Machine Co., supra,*was the same ground which the defendant assigned to the first count of the complaint in the instant case. It is therefore evident that we must hold that the t]:;:i,a,b court committed reversible error in not sustaining the demurrer of the defendant to the first count of the complaint.

This case is therefore reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
Adopted March 12, 2015



# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Amendments to:

State Air Qua l ity Control Plan

Vol. III: Appendices

Adopted

March 12, 2015

Bill Walker

, Governor

Larry Hartig

, CommissionerAdopted March 12, 2015

This page was intentionally left blank for two

- sided copying.Adopted March 12, 2015

The State of Alaska’s State Air Quality Control Plan Volume III ( A ppendi x to Volume II

,

Section II of this p lan ) is amended by removing the following regulations:

• 18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control as amended through February 28 , 201 5 ; and replacing them

with the adopted version of the regulations:

• 18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control as amended through March 12, 2015.

The State of Alaska’s State Air Quality Control Plan Volume III (Appendix to Volume II,

Section II of this plan) is amended by adding the following document and its two attachments :

• Clean Air Act Section 110 Infrastructure Certification for the 2010 1

- hour Nitrogen

Dioxide (NO 2 ) and 1

- hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) N ational Ambient Air Quality Standards ;

• Attachment #1

- Alaska Administrative Code Title 2

- Administration ; Chapter 50

- Alaska Public Offices Commission: Conflict of Interest, Campaign Disclosure,

Legislative Financial Disclosure, and Regulations of Lobbying ; Article 1

– Public

Official Financial Disclosure (2 AAC 50.010

- 2 AAC 50.200); and

• Attachment #2

- Alaska Administrative Code Title 9

– Law ; Chapter 52

– Executive

Branch Code of Ethics (9 AAC 52.010

– 9 AAC 52.990).

Volume II, Section III.C : Fairbanks Transportation Control Program

, adopted into the State Air

Quality Control Plan as of February 22, 2013, is amended as follows:

• Appendix III.C.3 is amended by adding the following document:

• Sierra Research memorandum

, dated November 20, 2012

, comparing the current

2005

- 2015 base year emission inventory to the 2002

- 2015 base year inventory

.

Vol. II, Section III. K: Area

- wide Pollutant Control Program for Regional Haze

, adopted into the

State Air Quality Control Plan as of February 11, 2011 , is amended by adding the following

appendix:

• A ppendix III.K.6 B est A vailable R etrofit T echnology (BART) Documentation

.Adopted March 12, 2015



### Placeholder for:

ALASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

TITLE 18

- DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

Chapter 50. Air Quality Control

as amended through March 12, 2015.

Current air quality regulations are available online at:

http://dec.alaska.gov/commish/regulations/ pdfs/18 AAC 50.pdfAdopted March 12, 2015

This page was intentionally left blank for two

- sided copying.
SABIT Funding Available for Training NIS Managers

----

**May 1999**
Has your organization considered the tremendous opportunities available in the newmarkets of the former Soviet Union? Imagine learning about the possibilities  directly frombusiness leaders in these expanding free market economies. Or think of the advantagesthat long-term collaboration with members of elite scientific institutes and laboratories couldoffer to your company.
The Department of Commerce's Special American Business Internship Training (SABIT) is aninnovative grant program that provides funding to U.S. organizations to conduct statesidetrainingfor business executives and scientists from the nis.
Through May 31, 1999, U.S. businesses, universities, and other interested organizations areinvitedto apply for SABIT grants to host English-speaking NIS colleagues for periods of 3-6 months.SABITreimburses round-trip international airfare, $30 per diem, and up to $500 per month for lodging.U.S.host organizations provide visas, medical insurance, and the actual "hands-on" training.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2006143EN.01000104.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 17.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/1 |

---

Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court

(2006/C 143/04)

At its meeting on 16 May 2006, the Court drew up the list, referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J.-P. Puissochet |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | L. Bay Larsen |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | R. Schintgen |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | A. Ó Caoimh |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | N. Colneric |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | E. Levits |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | S. von Bahr |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | U. Lõhmus |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | A. Tizzano |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J. Klučka |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J.-N. Cunha Rodrigues |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J. Malenovský |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | R. Silva de Lapuerta |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | M. Ilešič |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | K. Lenaerts |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | A. Borg Barthet |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | K. Schiemann |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | G. Arestis |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J. Makarczyk |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | E. Juhász |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | P. Kūris |

At its meeting on 16 May 2006, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Chambers of five Judges as follows:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J.- P. Puissochet |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | A. Ó Caoimh |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | S. von Bahr |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | U. Lõhmus |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | A. Tizzano |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J. Malenovský |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | A. Borg Barthet |

At its meeting on 14 October 2003, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Sixth Chamber as follows:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J.-P. Puissochet |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | S. von Bahr |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | A. Tizzano |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | A. Borg Barthet |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | U. Lõhmus |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | A. Ó Caoimh |

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration 

# AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. 

## Background 

Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1391. 

## Upcoming Sunset Reviews for March 2009 

There are no Sunset Reviews scheduled for initiation in March 2009. 

                        For information on the Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews,                         *See*19 CFR 351.218. This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community. Guidance on methodological or                               ( print page 5817)                            analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3, “Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders;” Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (“Sunset Policy Bulletin”). The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.                     

*Dated: January 27, 2009.*

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9-2197 Filed 1-30-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*RICHARD STEVENSON

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 43 Conn. App. 680 (AC 14656), is denied.

*921
      *Glenn W. Falk*and *Donald D. Dakers,*special public defenders, in support of the petition.

*Robert J. Scheinblum,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided April 3, 1997

BERDON, J., dissenting. I would grant the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal.
MEMORANDUM 

TO: DOCKET FOR CISWI NSPS AND EG 

FROM: AMY LAMSON, RISK AND BENEFITS GROUP 

SUBJECT: HEALTH INCIDENCES FOR CISWI FINAL RULE 

DATE: 2/18/2011 

Due to time limitations under the court-ordered schedule, we were unable to fully update 

the RIAs for the CISWI NSPS and EG to reflect the final rule. We provide this memo to the 

docket as documentation of the estimated health incidences to support the information in the 

communication materials. These health incidences were calculated using the methodology 

described in the RIA using the emission reductions for the final rule, which is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html . 

Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 for the Final CISWI NSPS and EG in 

2016* 

 Final MACT Floor 

Avoided Premature Mortality 

Pope et al. 40 

Laden et al. 100 

Avoided Morbidity 

Chronic Bronchitis 27 

Acute Myocardial Infarction 64 

Hospital Admissions, Respiratory 10 

Hospital Admissions, Cardiovascular 20 

Emergency Room Visits, Respiratory 38 

Acute Bronchitis 65 

Work Loss Days 5,300 

Asthma Exacerbation 700 

MRAD 31,000 

Lower Respiratory Symptoms 770 

Upper Respiratory Symptoms 580 

* These health incidences are 4% higher than those shown in the final RIA for this rule.
§ 423.2102 Request for Council review when ALJ or attorney adjudicator issues decision or dismissal. ( a ) ( 1 ) An enrollee may request Council review of a decision or dismissal issued by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator if the enrollee files a written request for a Council review within 60 calendar days after receipt of the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's written decision or dismissal.
( 2 ) An enrollee may request that Council review be expedited if the appeal involves an issue specified in § 423.566(b) but does not include solely a request for payment of Part D drugs already furnished. ( i ) If an enrollee is requesting that the Council review be expedited, the enrollee submits an oral or written request within 60 calendar days after the receipt of the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's written decision or dismissal. A prescribing physician or other prescriber may provide oral or written support for an enrollee's request for expedited review.
( ii ) The Council must document all oral requests for expedited review in writing and maintain the documentation in the case files.
( 3 ) For purposes of this section, the date of receipt of the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's written decision or dismissal is presumed to be 5 calendar days after the date of the notice of the decision or dismissal, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
( 4 ) The request is considered as filed on the date it is received by the entity specified in the notice of the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's action.
( b ) An enrollee requesting a review may ask that the time for filing a request for Council review be extended if— ( 1 ) The request for an extension of time is in writing or, for expedited reviews, in writing or oral. The Council must document all oral requests in writing and maintain the documentation in the case file.
( 2 ) The request explains why the request for review was not filed within the stated time period. If the Council finds that there is good cause for missing the deadline, the time period will be extended. To determine whether good cause exists, the Council uses the standards outlined at § 405.942(b)(2) and (3) of this chapter.
( c ) An enrollee does not have the right to seek Council review of an ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's remand to an IRE, or an ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's affirmation of an IRE's dismissal of a request for reconsideration, or dismissal of a request to review an IRE dismissal.
[82 FR 5137, Jan. 17, 2017]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Military Coup d’Etat in Gabon

# 									Military Coup d’Etat in Gabon							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

October 23, 2023

The United States has concluded that a military coup d’état has taken place in Gabon.  Pursuant to section 7008 of the Department of State’s annual appropriations act, the United States is suspending most U.S. assistance to the Government of Gabon.  This foreign assistance has been temporarily paused by the United States since September 26.

We underscore that our humanitarian, health, and education assistance will continue to benefit the people of Gabon.

The United States reaffirms our commitment to support Gabon in conducting a timely and durable transition to democratic civilian governance and advancing shared security interests in the Gulf of Guinea.  We will resume our assistance alongside concrete actions by the transitional government toward establishing democratic rule.  We will continue to work closely with the Gabonese people and regional partners.

The United States stands with the Gabonese people in their aspirations for democracy, prosperity, and stability.

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsGabonOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 192 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase 

in taxes on Social Security benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr. 

FEENEY, and Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Bene5 ficiary Tax Reduction Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCREASE IN TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY 

7 BENEFITS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 86(a) of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to social se10 curity and tier 1 railroad retirement benefits) is amended 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 192 IH

1 by adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘This 

2 paragraph shall not apply to any taxable year beginning 

3 after December 31, 2006.’’. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

5 (1) Paragraph (3) of section 871(a) of such 

6 Code is amended by striking ‘‘85 percent’’ in sub7 paragraph (A) and inserting ‘‘50 percent’’. 

8 (2)(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 121(e)(1) 

9 of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Public 

10 Law 98–21) is amended— 

11 (i) by striking ‘‘(A) There’’ and inserting 

12 ‘‘There’’; 

13 (ii) by striking ‘‘(i)’’ immediately following 

14 ‘‘amounts equivalent to’’; and 

15 (iii) by striking ‘‘, less (ii)’’ and all that 

16 follows and inserting a period. 

17 (B) Paragraph (1) of section 121(e) of such Act 

18 is amended by striking subparagraph (B). 

19 (C) Paragraph (3) of section 121(e) of such Act 

20 is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and by re21 designating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B). 

22 (D) Paragraph (2) of section 121(e) of such 

23 Act is amended in the first sentence by striking 

24 ‘‘paragraph (1)(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 192 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0362

MASTERS GROUP INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., 

Third-Party Plaintiff, Appellee, and 

Cross-Appellant, 

V.

COMERICA BANK, 

Third-Party Defendant, Appellant, and 

Cross-Appellee. 

Grant of Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time 

__________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26, Appellee and CrossAppellant may file and serve an answer brief and cross-appeal opening brief in this 

matter on or before December 14, 2020.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

November 5 2020

11/05/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0362
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00305-CV

In re Patrick Earl Tarkington

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s 

failure to set for hearing his plea to the jurisdiction. Having reviewed the petition and the record 

provided, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a); see also

Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a); In re Smith, No. 03-14-00478-CV, 2014 WL 4079922, at *2 

(Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 13, 2014, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus relief when relator 

failed to provide sufficient record from which to evaluate claim for mandamus relief); In re 

Halley, No. 03-15-00310-CV, 2015 WL 4448831, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin July 14, 2015) 

(orig. proceeding) (concluding that a six-month delay did not constitute an unreasonable length 

of time under “failure to rule” analysis).

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith

Filed: July 13, 2023