alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0283 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0283

**96/283/EC: Commission Decision of 11 April 1996 approving the programme for the eradication of Aujeszky's disease in Luxembourg (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 107 , 30/04/1996 P. 0016 - 0016 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 11 April 1996 approving the programme for the eradication of Aujeszky's disease in Luxembourg (Text with EEA relevance) (96/283/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), as last amended by Directive 95/25/EC (2), and in particular Article 9 (3) thereof,

Whereas an eradication programme was commenced in Luxembourg for Aujeszky's disease in February 1993; whereas this programme was approved by Commission Decision 93/200/EEC (3) for a three-year period which expired on 14 March 1996;

Whereas the eradication programme is still in progress; whereas the programme should allow Aujeszky's disease to be eradicated from Luxembourg in the future;

Whereas it is therefore appropriate to extend the approval of the programme for a further period of three years;

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 programme for the eradication of Aujeszky's disease from Luxembourg is hereby approved for a further period of three years.

Article 2

Luxembourg shall bring into force by 15 April 1996 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementing the programme referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 15 April 1996.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 April 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

ds

(1) OJ No L 121, 29. 7. 1964, p. 1977/64.

(2) OJ No L 243, 11. 10. 1995, p. 16.

(3) OJ No L 87, 7. 4. 1993, p. 14.
School Flag Program: Fact Sheet

WHAT IS THE SCHOOL FLAG PROGRAM?

The Flag Program uses colored flags based on U.S. 

EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI) to notify teachers, 

coaches, students, and others about outdoor air 

quality conditions. Schools raise a colored flag

each day that corresponds to their local air quality 

forecast.

WHY WAS THE FLAG PROGRAM DEVELOPED?

The purpose of this program is to create public 

awareness of outdoor air quality conditions so 

children can continue to exercise while protecting 

their health when air quality is in unhealthy ranges. 

Children are at greater risk from air pollution 

because their lungs are still developing and they 

breathe more air per pound of body weight than 

adults. Even when air quality is unhealthy, exercise 

can be continued indoors for children who have

symptoms outdoors. Recommendations for outdoor 

activities on poor air quality days can be found at 

www.airnow.gov under the School Flag Program.

WHAT IS THE AIR QUALITY INDEX?

The AQI is a guide for reporting daily air quality. 

It indicates how clean or polluted the air is and 

identifies health effects. EPA uses the AQI for

five common air pollutants: ground-level ozone, 

particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, 

and nitrogen dioxide. For each pollutant, EPA has 

established national air quality standards to protect 

against harmful health effects.

CONTACT Betty Ann 

(908) 310-9539 

Bettyann@breathetestedair.com 

WHAT DO THE COLORS MEAN?

The Flag Program uses green, yellow, orange, red and 

purple flags.These colors correspond to the AQI.

Green means the air quality is good. 

No health impacts are expected 

when air quality is in this range.

Yellow means air quality is 

acceptable. Unusually sensitive 

people should consider limiting 

prolonged outdoor exertion.

Orange means air quality is 

unhealthy for sensitive groups -- 

people with lung disease such as 

asthma, children and older adults 

should limit prolonged outdoor 

exertion.

Red means air quality is unhealthy. 

Sensitive groups should avoid 

prolonged outdoor exertion. 

Everyone else should limit prolonged 

outdoor exertion.

Purple means air quality is very 

unhealthy. Sensitive groups should 

avoid all outdoor exertion. Everyone 

else should limit outdoor exertion.

HOW WILL I KNOW WHAT COLOR FLAG TO USE? 

Check the AQI to know what color flag to use at

www.epa.gov/airnow. Many cities provide an air

quality forecast via e-mail by subscribing to:

www.airnow.gov/enviroflash.

Office of Air and Radiation(6301A) 

April 2011

EPA-456/F-11-004
Executive Termination Severance Agreement, dated as of February 7, 2000



 
Exhibit 10.6 
500 Westridge Drive 
Watsonville, CA 95076-4100 
Telephone (831) 728-2700 
 
February 7, 2000

 
Eric Nelson 
2537 SE Stephens St. 
Portland, OR 97214

 
Dear Eric: 
 
I am please to extend to you the offer in writing to join West Marine as Vice
President and Controller. I am confident that you will fit well with the other senior members of our management and make a great contribution toward moving our company forward. Reporting to the Controller position will be Cash Management, Financial
Reporting, and Financial Planning & Analysis functions of West Marine. The salary for this position will be $150,000 annually, and in addition, we will award you a sign-up bonus of $5,000 payable within 30 days of your date of hire.

 
The stock option award will be an individual grant of 30,000
shares vesting at 20% annually. Additional grants will be awarded each year with a value that is at the discretion of West Marine’s Board of Directors. The Controller position carries a 30% target bonus. The bonus determinations have not been
finalized for the year 2000, but past awards have been based exclusively on attainment of an EPS target. The bonus program has a 4:1 leverage ratcheting up or down from the bonus target. There is a ceiling on bonus that has not yet been determined
for the year 2000. 
 
Your employment with West Marine is for no
specified period and constitutes “at-will” employment. As a result, you are free to terminate employment at any time, for any reason or for no reason. Similarly, West Marine is free to terminate your employment at any time for any reason
or no reason. 
 
However, if the Company terminates your employment
for any reason other than cause, the Company will compensate you with one half of your annual salary. Payment would be made through regular pay periods until complete or new employment is obtained. 
 
You are, of course, entitled to all West Marine benefits including medical,
dental, profit sharing, etc. providing you meet the company requirements to enter each program which are basically time based. It is our aim to cover all reasonable relocation expenses. In that regard, we will cover the sales commission on the sale
of your Oregon home, any loan points upon buying a new home, cost of moving household items and up to three months temporary living. 
 
Eric, I sincerely look froward to working with you and having the two of us, as well as the entire West Marine team, enjoy the benefit of the fruits of
our labor. We have an exciting company and opportunity, and I believe a quality executive such as you truly belongs here. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
/s/    Russell Solt 
 
Russell E. Solt 
CFO 
cc: Linda Kennedy 
 
Please acknowledge your
acceptance of the above offer by signing below and returning it to my attention marked “CONFIDENTIAL”. 

	
	 	 	 /s/    Eric
Nelson        

	 	 2/22/2000


	 	 	 Eric Nelson
	 	 Date
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7950

MICHAEL ALLEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN TAYLOR, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge; David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-117-3) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 2001). 2 PER CURIAM: Michael Allen appeals the magistrate judge’s * order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) because the relief sought in the petition, a belated appeal to a three-judge panel of the Virginia Court of Appeals, had been awarded to Allen. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Allen v. Taylor , CA-00-117-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 23, 2001). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanyingQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31,2003, I, Gary D. Gall, President, Chief Executive Officerof  the Company, hereby certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  that:

 

(1)          such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           theinformation contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company forthe period ended March 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Western Sierra Bancorp.

 
| Dated:  May 12, 2003 |
|---------------------------|
|                      |
|                      | /s/ Gary D. Gall |   |
|                      | President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |

 

----
# & AFRICAN SERVICES 

# .t COMMITTEE
The Honorable John F. Kerry US Department ofState 2201 CStreet, NW Washington, DC 20520 The Honorable Anthony Foxx Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE, 9th Floor Washington, DC 20590 The Honorable Penny S. Pritzker Department ofCommerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 May 27,2015

Re: Comment dockets DOS-2015-Q016, DOT- OST-2015-D082 and DOC-2015-0001-0001 Secretary Kerry, Secretary Foxx, and Secretary Pritzker: 429 West 127th Street New York, New York 10027 T: 212-222-3882 F: 212-222-7067 www.africanservices.org

On behalfofthe African Services Committee, I am writing to urge you to maintain our current Open Skies agreement with the UAE. Members ofthe African Services Comm ittee benefit greatly from our current Open Skies agreements with Gulfcarriers who promote a great deal of international travel with African countries. That is why we are concerned that any proposal to renegotiate our existing agreements willjeopardize commerce, travel, and cultural ties and impactthe economic benefits the New York metro area experiences from our airports. It is also importantto our members who are seeking to maintain close economic and personal ties with family, friends, and businesses abroad. African Services Committee urges your serious consideration ofthe economic and cultural impact the Persian Gulfcarriers' provide for the travel and tourism sector. I hope thatyou will notconsider reopening the bilateral Open Skies agreements with our close allies and business partners as itwill have a negative effect on our community and economy.

# M·!7~ (y(_jA ' Amanda Lugg Director ofAdvocacy 

# W

AHead to Know. AHeart to Feel. AHand to Serve. An NGO with special consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              408,906
<SECURITIES>                                        583,028
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,348,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                        233,780
<INVENTORY>                                          27,287
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2,216,999
<PP&E>                                            4,751,521
<DEPRECIATION>                                      524,511
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   14,302,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,881,253
<BONDS>                                           3,170,278
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                         10,726,560
<OTHER-SE>                                       (1,475,546)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     14,302,545
<SALES>                                              38,052
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5,148,835
<CGS>                                                22,831
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,059,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  109,786
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     261,952
<INCOME-TAX>                                          7,716
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 257,236
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        257,236
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.06


</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report.**
 
2009
2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.42:IN 2/
Item Number:0485-I (online)
CGP systemNumber:000930552
 
January 16, 2018
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 63619

)

Under Contract No. DE

- AM36

- 09GO29033

T.O. N39430

- 16

- F

- 1838 )

)

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq.

Doyle & Bachman LLP

Arlington, VA

APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy Chief Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated : June 1 4 , 2023

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63619

, Appeal of Constellation

NewEnergy, Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: June 14, 2023 RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### McRAE, etc. v FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, etc.

Case No. CL-87-9334 “Al”

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County

March 1, 1990

OPINION OF THE COURT

JACK H. COOK, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM*

The Plaintiff, CYNTHIA McRAE, as personal representative of the Estate of Dale Edward McRae, has sued the Defendant, FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, under the Federal Employee’s Liability Act for the death of Dale McRae. Mr. McRae’s death resulted from a collision between two trains, one of which he was operating. Florida East Coast Railway Company counterclaimed *166against the McRae estate for damages to the locomotive and train operated by Mr. McRae at the time of the accident.

Cynthia McRae now moves to dismiss the counterclaim on the basis that it constitutes a device, the purpose of which is to enable the railroad to exempt itself from liability created by the F.E.L.A. and therefore, violates Sections 55 and 60 of 45 U.S.C. The railroad argues that it has a common-law right to sue an employee for damages to its equipment resulting from the employee’s negligence; that its claim is a compulsory counterclaim under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; and that the exercise of this common-law compulsory counterclaim cannot constitute a violation of the F.E.L.A. provisions relied upon by the Plaintiff.

This question has not been decided in the State of Florida and the courts that have ruled upon it are split. The primary case cited in support of the Plaintiffs position is *Stack v Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company,*615 P.2d 457 (Wash. 1980) in which the Washington Supreme Court unanimously held that a similar claim did violate Sections 55 and 60 of 45 U.S.C. The two Federal Courts of Appeal that have ruled on the question have come to the opposite conclusion, see *Cavanaugh v Western Maryland Railway Company,*729 F.2d 289 (4th Cir. 1984) and *Sprague v Boston and Maine Corp.,*769 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1985).

The equities of the situation which support the Plaintiffs position are set forth well in both the *Stack*case and the dissent in the *Cavanaugh*case. In rejecting these equitable considerations, the federal courts have reasoned that the common-law right of the railroad to sue its employees for negligently damaging its property preexisted F.E.L.A. The courts reasoned that had congress meant to limit or extinguish this right it could have done so by clear language within the act. The *Cavanaugh*court further notes that the logical extension of the position urged by the Plaintiff would require the dismissal of a railroad’s negligence claim against an employee if the employee counterclaimed under the F.E.L.A.

While the equitable considerations urged by the Plaintiff are certainly significant, I find that the decisions of the *Cavanaugh*and *Sprague*courts are probably a more accurate analysis of congressional intent and reflect a more logical reading of the statutory language.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, on this 1st day of March, 1990.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00067-CV

Kenneth L. Berry

v.

Bay, Ltd.

On Appeal from the

343rd District Court of San Patricio County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. S-18-5171CV-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed 

in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the 

judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the 

appeal are adjudged against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 3, 2022
[No. 28230-5-II.

Division Two.

December 20, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Zeincia Nicole Harmon, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 01-1-00935-2, Anna M. Laurie, J., entered December 21, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Morgan and Bridgewater, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.06


 


FIRST AMENDMENT


 


This
First Amendment (the “First Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this 31
day of August, 2009 (the “First Amendment Effective Date”) and amends the
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of September 29, 2008
(the “Employment Agreement”), by and between NEW FRONTIER MEDIA, INC. (“NFM”)
and MARC CALLIPARI (“Executive”).  Unless
otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used shall have the meaning
ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement.


 


In
consideration of the foregoing, and other good and valuable consideration,
including Executive’s continued employment with NFM, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Executive and NFM hereby agree as
follows:


 


I.              AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT


 


Section 1
“Term” is hereby amended by deleting such section in its entirety and
replacing the same with the following:


 


“The
Term of this Agreement shall begin as of the First Amendment Effective Date and
shall continue until midnight on August 31, 2012, or such other date as
the Agreement is terminated by either party as hereinafter provided (the “Term”).


 


II.            GENERAL PROVISIONS


 


All
other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement that have not been
specifically amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.  This First Amendment, together with the
Employment Agreement, contains all of the terms and conditions agreed upon by
the parties hereto regarding the subject matter hereof.  All prior agreements, promises, negotiations
and representations, either oral or written, relating to the subject matter of
this First Amendment or the Employment Agreement not expressly set forth in
this First Amendment or the Employment Agreement are of no force or
effect.  Any waiver, alteration or
modification of any of the terms of this First Amendment shall be valid only if
made in writing and signed by both parties hereto. This First Amendment may be
executed in up to two counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original
but together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first
set forth above.


 


 


	
  NEW
  FRONTIER MEDIA, INC.

  	
   

  	
  EXECUTIVE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:
  

  	
  /s/
  Michael Weiner

  	
   

  	
  By:
  

  	
  /s/
  Marc Callipari

  
	
  Name:
  Michael Weiner

  	
   

  	
  Name:
  Marc Callipari

  
	
  Title:
  Chief Executive Officer