alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0070 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0070

**95/70/EC: Commission Decision of 8 March 1995 approving the programme for the eradication of Aujeszky' s disease in Sweden (Only the Swedish text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 059 , 17/03/1995 P. 0032 - 0032 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 8 March 1995 approving the programme for the eradication of Aujeszky's disease in Sweden (Only the Swedish text is authentic) (95/70/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 the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas an eradication programme was commenced in Sweden for Aujeszky's disease in 1991;

Whereas in accordance with Article 9 (2) of Directive 64/432/EEC the Commission has examined the programme; whereas it meets the criteria laid down in Article 9 (1) of the said Directive and can therefore be approved;

Whereas by letter dated 12 January 1995, Sweden has submitted information on its eradication programme for Aujeszky's disease;

Whereas the programme should allow Aujeszky's disease to be eradicated from Sweden in the future; whereas the situation concerning this disease in Sweden shall be reviewed within two 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 Sweden is hereby approved for a period of two years.

Article 2

Sweden shall bring into force by 1 March 1995 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementing the programme referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 March 1995.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden.

Done at Brussels, 8 March 1995.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No 121, 29. 7. 1964, p. 1977/64.
EXHIBIT
32.1








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 Annual Report of
Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. (the “company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 27, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), I, Sally J. Smith, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §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 results of operations of the company.





Date:
      February 26, 2010By:
                /s/ SALLYJ. SMITHSally
      J. Smith
§ 152.315 Reporting on accrual basis. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section each sponsor or planning agency shall submit all financial reports on an accrual basis.
( b ) If records are not maintained on an accrual basis by a sponsor or planning agency, reports may be based on an analysis of records or best estimates.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-8463 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-226-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Modification 2.0 $ 170.00 $0 $ 170.00 4 $ 680.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 680

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

0.0 $ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
#### OFFUTT v. FIZZ-O WATER CO.

No. 29728.

May 7, 1940.

Rehearing Denied May 28, 1940.

*104 P. 2d 559.*

W. L. Shirley, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Donald L. Brown, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error has appealed from an order of the court of common pleas of Tulsa county dismissing an appeal from the justice of peace court, and it is admitted that if, under section 979, O. S. 1931, 39 Okla. St. Ann. § 212, the plaintiff in error did not have a right to file an appeal within ten days from the date of the order overruling motion for new trial filed in the justice of peace court, then the court of common pleas was without jurisdiction and properly dismissed the appeal. Defendant in error has moved to dismiss for the reason that the appeal is without merit and taken for delay only. We are of the opinion that the cause should be dismissed. Since McCullough v. Root, 64 Okla. 73, 166 P. 735, this court has held that it is not necessary to file a motion for new trial after a judgment in the *523justice of peace court. Therefore, the appeal must be taken within ten days from the date of the judgment rendered.

This court has held that where, upon examination of the record, petition in error, and the motion to dismiss, it appears that the appeal is without merit, same will be dismissed. Skirvin v. Bass Furniture & Carpet Co., 43 Okla. 440, 143 P. 190; Whitney v. Harris, 157 Okla. 186, 11 P. 2d 153; Smith v. Graham Brown Shoe Co., 179 Okla. 559, 67 P. 2d 448.

The appeal is dismissed.

BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH, V. C. J., and HURST, DAVISON, and DANNER, JJ., concur.
§ 398.2 Number and designation of hubs. ( a ) *What is a hub?* The Department considers hubs as belonging to any one of three classifications: ( 1 ) A *large* hub is a place accounting for at least 1.00 percent of the total enplanements in the United States;
( 2 ) A *medium* hub is a place accounting for at least 0.25 percent but less than 1.00 percent of the total enplanements in the United States; and
( 3 ) A *small* hub is a place accounting for at least 0.05 percent but less than 0.25 percent of the total enplanements in the United States.
( b ) *How many hubs?* ( 1 ) As a general matter, the Department will require service to one large or medium hub.
( 2 ) In Alaska or when the nearest large or medium hub is more than 400 miles from the eligible place, the Department may instead require service to a small hub or nonhub.
( 3 ) In some cases, the Department may require service to two hubs, of which at least one will be a large or medium hub. The Department will require service to two hubs if an eligible place has close commercial, geographic, and political ties to both hubs and if there is sufficient traffic from the eligible place to support two round trips a day to both hubs. If traffic is not sufficient, the Department may require one round trip a day to both hubs if the community requests such service.
( 4 ) In no event will essential air service consist of service to more than two hubs.
( c ) *Which hub?* ( 1 ) In designating hubs, the Department will weigh all of the following factors: ( i ) The extent to which candidate hubs provide access to the national air transportation system;
( ii ) The commercial, geographic, and political ties of candidate hubs to the eligible place;
( iii ) The traffic levels to candidate hubs, as shown by traffic studies and origin and designation data;
( iv ) The distance of candidate hubs from the eligible place; and
( v ) The size of candidate hubs. Large size will be a positive factor, but principally as substantiating the access and community-ties factors.
( 2 ) For Alaska, rather than requiring service to a hub, the Department may instead require that service from an eligible place be provided to a nearby focal point for traffic which, in turn, has service to a hub.
§ 33.45 Calibration tests. ( a ) Each engine must be subjected to the calibration tests necessary to establish its power characteristics and the conditions for the endurance test specified in § 33.49. The results of the power characteristics calibration tests form the basis for establishing the characteristics of the engine over its entire operating range of crankshaft rotational speeds, manifold pressures, fuel/air mixture settings, and altitudes. Power ratings are based upon standard atmospheric conditions with only those accessories installed which are essential for engine functioning.
( b ) A power check at sea level conditions must be accomplished on the endurance test engine after the endurance test. Any change in power characteristics which occurs during the endurance test must be determined. Measurements taken during the final portion of the endurance test may be used in showing compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
[Doc. No. 3025, 29 FR 7453, June 10, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 33-6, 39 FR 35465, Oct. 1, 1974]
#### Michael Zappolo et al., Respondents, *v.*John A. Lanigan et al., Appellants.

(Argued October 8, 1936;

decided October 23, 1936.)

*585
      *William Ryan*for appellants.

*John F. Wright*and *George H. Vinette*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### [655] Havens *vs.*Dibble.

Where a plea is served after the expiration of the rule to plead, upon the *agent*of the plaintiff’s attorney, and the attorney on the day of the service of the plea, without knowledge of the service, enters the defendant’s default for not pleading, the default will be held regular, and the defendant will be relieved only on an affidavit of merits.

Motion to set aside default and subsequent proceedings for *irregularity.*The time to plead expired on the *fifth*of J anuary. A plea was served on the law agent of the plaintiff’s attorney at *Geneva,*on the *sixth*of January. The plaintiff’s attorney resided in *the*city of *New-Tork,*and on the same day entered' the defendant’s default for want of a plea at the clerk’s office in that city, and subsequently perfected judgment, before he learned that a plea had been served. The defendant’s attorney attempted to show the hour of the day when the plea was served on the agent, and insisted that it was at an earlier hour than that when the default was entered.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

The court will not inquire into the fractions of a day, except where the ends of justice require it. Here the defendant waited until after the time for pleading had expired, and then served a plea on the agent. Where such a course is pursued, and the opposite attorney proceeds in the cause without actual notice of the plea, we will not take notice of the fact that the plea was served at an earlier hour of the day than the entry of the default. *The*plaintiff has been regular; but as there is an affidavit of merits, the default and subsequent proceedings are set aside, on payment of costs. (See *Columbia Turnpike*v. *Haywood,*10 *Wendell,*422.)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BULLETIN 1031

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PLATE i.
132°50' 45' 40 132°35

+ + + +
+ + + $+ + + + +t +
+ + + Ft + + + + + + +
t+ + + tet + + + + + + + +
+ + +-4 : —t + + + + + +

+ + + $+ +
Se /
+ + t+ + + t+ t+ t+ HF +

is 57°

ost 98
EXPLANATION
: 1
he | Be
| . : bq
SPRAY { ~ —_ <2
Ee o . . x - -
579 SPRAY \ \ _ e2 Unconsolidated sediments, alluvium, glacial drift o 57°
00' [——_ a2 % 2 ——] 00
— + 62 + + + 26
~ fo ow
wa 52 + + o
50 beg BO
. \ + + + / | Quartz diorite;h i ts of plagioc! ar
pe y ro ry 5 uartz diorite;has varying amounts of plagioclase = a
+ + SS y a8 and hornblende, also aplite veins and dikes j> =
>
5 >
ISLAND £
. . Coa
Hornblende plagioclase gneiss and infolded zou
mica and garnetiferous schist gz
r=z&O
33°
fs)
ox
a
cro
Calcareous gneiss and schist; contains beds

and stringers of crystalline limestone

Contact, indefinitely located
Lineament determined from aerial photographs
Dashed where inferred
40%

a

Strike and dip of foliation

—<—<$<nyp

Proposed tunnel! route and
powerhouse site

Proposed alternate tunnel route
and powerhouse site

Geology by J.C.Miller,
assisted by D.K. Fowler, 1951

INTERIOR—GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, WASHINGTON, D.C, — 61185 132035"

GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE MAP OF PROPOSED POWERSITES AT SCENERY LAKE
SWAN LAKE, AND RUTH LAKE, NEAR PETERSBURG, ALASKA

2000 i?) 2000 4000 6000 8000 FEET
|= Ah 1 E 1 ]

132°50°

Contour interval 1000 ft.
§ 121.327 Supplemental oxygen: Reciprocating engine powered airplanes. ( a ) *General.* Except where supplemental oxygen is provided in accordance with § 121.331, no person may operate an airplane unless supplemental oxygen is furnished and used as set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. The amount of supplemental oxygen required for a particular operation is determined on the basis of flight altitudes and flight duration, consistent with the operation procedures established for each operation and route.
( b ) *Crewmembers.* ( 1 ) At cabin pressure altitudes above 10,000 feet up to and including 12,000 feet, oxygen must be provided for, and used by, each member of the flight crew on flight deck duty, and must be provided for other crewmembers, for that part of the flight at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration.
( 2 ) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,000 feet, oxygen must be provided for, and used by, each member of the flight crew on flight deck duty, and must be provided for other crewmembers, during the entire flight time at those altitudes.
( 3 ) When a flight crewmember is required to use oxygen, he must use it continuously, except when necessary to remove the oxygen mask or other dispenser in connection with his regular duties. Standby crewmembers who are on call or are definitely going to have flight deck duty before completing the flight must be provided with an amount of supplemental oxygen equal to that provided for crewmembers on duty other than on flight deck duty. If a standby crewmember is not on call and will not be on flight deck duty during the remainder of the flight, he is considered to be a passenger for the purposes of supplemental oxygen requirements.
( c ) *Passengers.* Each certificate holder shall provide a supply of oxygen, approved for passenger safety, in accordance with the following: ( 1 ) For flights of more than 30 minutes duration at cabin pressure altitudes above 8,000 feet up to and including 14,000 feet, enough oxygen for 30 minutes for 10 percent of the passengers.
( 2 ) For flights at cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet up to and including 15,000 feet, enough oxygen for that part of the flight at those altitudes for 30 percent of the passengers.
( 3 ) For flights at cabin pressure altitudes above 15,000 feet, enough oxygen for each passenger carried during the entire flight at those altitudes.
( d ) For the purposes of this subpart *cabin pressure altitude* means the pressure altitude corresponding with the pressure in the cabin of the airplane, and *flight altitude* means the altitude above sea level at which the airplane is operated. For airplanes without pressurized cabins, “cabin pressure altitude” and “flight altitude” mean the same thing.
#### PELHAM v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 89-8019

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County

December 27, 1990

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Ty Trayner, Esquire, for appellant.

Darrell Dirks, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.

Before SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, Circuit Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

The matter on appeal was the trial court’s denial of Appellee’s[sic] Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis. The undersigned court reviewed the record and briefs filed in the cases and heard oral argument on December 27, 1990. The trial court’s denial of the Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis is affirmed.

*46This court believes *State v Caudle,*504 So.2d 419 (Fla. 5th DC A 1987) is controlling. In *Caudle*the defendant filed a sworn motion stating he did “not recall being advised of his constitutional rights,” and did not add to that statement when he testified at the hearing. The court in *Caudle*found the testimony was vague, conclusory and not supported by competent facts. The records in *Caudle*had been destroyed. Similarly in the instant case, there was no record. When asked whether he was told that he had a right to an attorney, the Appellee[sic], Pelham, stated “I can’t recall” and again that he didn’t remember what was said when he pled before the judge only that “I was handed no forms or anything to read.” The defendant seeking to overturn a judgment based on a guilty plea has the burden of establishing that the plea was not knowing and voluntary. *Mikenas v State,*460 So.2d 359 (Fla. 1984). *Wilkerson v State,*401 So.2d 110 (Fla. 1981). The laches argument in the instant case is not as compelling as that in *Caudle*because in this case the defendant’s delay was not entirely his fault since he did obtain counsel to pursue his claim in 1984, three years after the conviction, and did not know that the attorney was not practicing law until a Florida Bar Trustee contacted him in 1988.

In conclusion, although the doctrine of laches would not preclude the Appellee[sic] from successfully bringing a Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis, the lower court should be affirmed and the petition denied because the Appellee[sic] did not bring forth sufficient evidence that the plea was not knowing and voluntary or there was not a waiver of right to counsel.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Hillsborough County, Florida this 27th day of December; 1990.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CFO CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC §1350, as adopted), Carter D. Hicks, the Chief FinancialOfficer of Digital River, Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

**1.    **TheCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003,and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “AnnualReport”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

**2.    **Theinformation contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company forthe periods presented therein.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 12th day of March2004.

 
|   | /s/ Carter D.  Hicks     |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |                     |
|   | Carter D. Hicks          |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toDigital River, Inc. and will be retained by Digital River, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
## Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR WATERS " H elping people ensure the future of our water resources"

November 8, 2012 Ms. Tinka G. Hyde Director, Water Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulev ard Chicago, IL 60604-3590 Dear Ms. Hyde 156 8 Highway 2, Two Harbors , MN 55616 2 1 8-834-144 1

MINNESOTA ' S LAKE SUPERIOR COASTAL PROGRAM , VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT (VGP) AND SMALL VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT (SVGP) FEDERAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION In a lette r dated March 9, 20 1 2, Minn es ota 's Lake Superior Coastal Program (MLSCP) re s ponded to the U S EPA's Decemb er 27, 2011 f ederal cons i s tency det ermination for two proposed general NPDES permit s for v e ss el discharge incidental to the normal operation of vesse l s with a letter s tating that the propo se d VGP s were not consistent w ith the enforceab le policie s ofMLSCP. This determination wa s ba s ed on comment s s ubmitted by the Minne s ota Pollution Control A ge nc y (MPCA) to Dr. R y an Albert , Environmental Sc ientist w ith the U . S . EPA's Water Permit s Di v i s ion , in a l etter d ated February 2 1 , 20 1 2, a nd contained in the 3 / 9/ 1 2 letter. Sub s equent coordination between MPCA and the Minneso ta Department of Natural Re s ourc es, MLSCP partn e r agencies, h as re s ulted in a conditiona l c e rtification of th e VGPs b y the MPCA under S ection 40 1 of the Clean Water Act in a letter dated September 7, 2012. MPCA i ssuance of the 401 certification ens ur e s that the VGP s can b e impl ement e d cons i stent with the enforceable polic ies of MLSCP . Therefore, MLS C P , a s the lead c oa s t a l agency purs u a nt to s e c tion 306( c) of the feder a l CZMA (16 U.S. C., sec tion 14 56(c)) and State of Minneso ta Executive Order 99- 1 2, here b y n otifies the U.S. EPA that the propo sed project i s con s is tent w ith MLSCP. Should you ha v e any que stion s please me at ( 2 1 8) 8 34-1441 . Sincerel y, 

# f!:& MLSC P Federal Co ns i s t e nc y Coo din a t o r 1 568 Highway 2 Two H arbor s, MN 556 1 6 cliff .bentley@state.rnn.us An Equa l Opportunity Emp l oye r W ho Val ues D i ve r si ty DNR lnfonnation : 651-296-6157 1 - 888 -646 - 6367 TIY : 651 - 296 - 5484 1 - 800 - 657 - 3 92 9
#### § 33.42 General.

Before each endurance test required by this subpart, the adjustment setting and functioning characteristic of each component having an adjustment setting and a functioning characteristic that can be established independent of installation on the engine must be established and recorded.

[Amdt. 33-6, 39 FR 35465, Oct. 1, 1974]