alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31995R0879 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995R0879

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 879/95 of 21 April 1995 amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3447/90 on special conditions for the granting of private storage aid for sheepmeat and goatmeat **

*
Official Journal L 091 , 22/04/1995 P. 0002 - 0004 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 879/95 of 21 April 1995 amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3447/90 on special conditions for the granting of private storage aid for sheepmeat and goatmeat

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 of 25 September 1989 on the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 7 (5) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3447/90 of 28 November 1990 on special conditions for the granting of private storage aid for sheepmeat and goatmeat (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1258/91 (3), provides that applications in the context of private storage aid be submitted to the intervention agencies in each Member State; whereas as a result of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden the intervention agencies of these new Member States should be included in the Annex to this Regulation and the opportunity should be taken to correct the addresses of other intervention agencies;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sheep and Goats,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 3447/90 is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 21 April 1995.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 289, 7. 10. 1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 333, 30. 11. 1990, p. 46.

(3) OJ No L 120, 15. 5. 1991, p. 15.

ANEXO - BILAG - ANHANG - ÐÁÑÁÑÔÇÌÁ - ANNEX - ANNEXE - ALLEGATO - BIJLAGE - ANEXO - LIITE - BILAGA

>TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2144

JOSE AMILCAR RAMOS CHACON,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: May 16, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tamara L. Jezic, Ivan Yacub, YACUB LAW OFFICES, Woodbridge, Virginia, for 

Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, 

Assistant Director, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Amilcar Ramos Chacon, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal 

from the immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal 

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly 

reviewed the record, including the transcript of Chacon’s merits hearing before the 

immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does 

not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that 

Chacon failed to show a nexus between past persecution or fear of future persecution and 

a protected ground. We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of 

protection under the CAT. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
§ 27.773 Pilot compartment view. ( a ) Each pilot compartment must be free from glare and reflections that could interfere with the pilot's view, and designed so that— ( 1 ) Each pilot's view is sufficiently extensive, clear, and undistorted for safe operation; and
( 2 ) Each pilot is protected from the elements so that moderate rain conditions do not unduly impair his view of the flight path in normal flight and while landing.
( b ) If certification for night operation is requested, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section must be shown by ground or night flight tests.
( c ) A vision system with a transparent display surface located in the pilot's outside field of view, such as a head up-display, head mounted display, or other equivalent display, must meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) While the vision system display is in operation, it must compensate for interference with the pilot's outside field of view such that the combination of what is visible in the display and what remains visible through and around it, allows the pilot compartment to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of this section.
( 2 ) The pilot's view of the external scene may not be distorted by the transparent display surface or by the vision system imagery. When the vision system displays imagery or any symbology that is referenced to the imagery and outside scene topography, including attitude symbology, flight path vector, and flight path angle reference cue, that imagery and symbology must be aligned with, and scaled to, the external scene.
( 3 ) The vision system must provide a means to allow the pilot using the display to immediately deactivate and reactivate the vision system imagery, on demand, without removing the pilot's hands from the primary flight and power controls, or their equivalent.
( 4 ) When the vision system is not in operation it must permit the pilot compartment to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of this section.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Docket FAA-2013-0485, Amdt. 27-48, 81 FR 90170, Dec. 13, 2016; Docket FAA-2016-9275, Amdt. 27-50, 83 FR 9423, Mar. 6, 2018]
Exhibit 99.1



              Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                      of Title 18 of the United States Code


         I, H. Wayne Posey, Chief Executive Officer of InterDent, Inc., certify
that (i) the Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of InterDent, Inc.




                                   \s\ H. WAYNE POSEY
                                 H. Wayne Posey
                               Chief Executive Officer
§ 71.901 Applicability. Unless otherwise designated: ( a ) Each reporting point listed in subpart H of FAA Order JO 7400.11J (incorporated by reference, see § 71.1) applies to all directions of flight. In any case where a geographic location is designated as a reporting point for less than all airways passing through that point, or for a particular direction of flight along an airway only, it is so indicated by including the airways or direction of flight in the designation of geographical location.
( b ) Place names appearing in the reporting point descriptions indicate VOR or VORTAC facilities identified by those names.
[Doc. No. 29334, 73 FR 54495, Sept. 22, 2008, as amended by Amdt. 71-40, 73 FR 60940, Oct. 15, 2008; Amdt. 71-41, 74 FR 46490, Sept. 10, 2009; Amdt. 71-42, 75 FR 55269, Sept. 10, 2010; Amdt. 71-43, 76 FR 53329, Aug. 26, 2011; Amdt. 71-44, 77 FR 50908, Aug. 23, 2012; Amdt. 71-45, 78 FR 52848, Aug. 27, 2013; Amdt. 71-46, 79 FR 51888, Sept. 2, 2014; Amdt. 71-47, 80 FR 51937, Aug. 27, 2015; Amdt. 71-48, 81 FR 55372, Aug. 19, 2016; Amdt. 71-49, 82 FR 40069, Aug. 24, 2017; Amdt. 71-50, 83 FR 43757, Aug. 28, 2018; Amdt. 71-51, 84 FR 45652, Aug. 30, 2019; Amdt. 71-52, 85 FR 50780, Aug. 18, 2020; Amdt. No. 71-53, 86 FR 46963, Aug. 23, 2021; Docket No. FAA-2022-1022, Amdt. No. 71-54, 87 FR 54878, Sept. 8, 2022; Docket No. FAA-2023-1785; Amendment No. 71-55, 88 FR 58072, Aug. 25, 2023; Docket No. FAA-2024-2061; Amendment No. 71-56, 89 FR 68339, Aug. 26, 2024] Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: By Docket No. FAA-2024-2061; Amendment No. 71-56, 89 FR 68339, Aug. 26, 2024, § 71.901(a) was amended by removing the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, effective Sept. 15, 2024 through Sept. 15, 2025.
Denied and Opinion Filed November 16 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 17 - 01299 - CV IN RE SONIA ALVAREZ , Relator Original Proceeding from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401 - 55108 - 2016 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Myers, and Boatright

Opinion by Justice Myers In this original proceeding, relator seeks relief from temporary orders that aba te her rights to possession and access to her children and prohibit her from any contact with the children until certain conditions are met. This Court is authorized to issue mandamus relief to correct a clear abuse of discretion for which relator has no adequate remedy by appeal
. In re Prudential Ins. Co. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Because temporary orders in suits affecting the parent

- child relationship are not appealable, a petition for a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means to challenge them. Dancy v. Daggett , 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991); In re Winters , No. 05

– 08

– 01486

– CV, 2008 WL 5177835, at *3

– 4 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Dec. 11, 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Pensom , 126 S.W.3d 251, 257 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, orig
. proceeding). It is relator’s burden to provide the court with a record sufficient to establish her right to relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a).– 2

–

Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown that either trial court abused its discretion by entering the orders at issue. Relator has, therefore, not shown she is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5 2.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

171299F.P05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
§ 29.1047 Takeoff cooling test procedures. ( a ) *Category A.* For each category A rotorcraft, cooling must be shown during takeoff and subsequent climb as follows: ( 1 ) Each temperature must be stabilized while hovering in ground effect with— ( i ) The power necessary for hovering;
( ii ) The appropriate cowl flap and shutter settings; and
( iii ) The maximum weight.
( 2 ) After the temperatures have stabilized, a climb must be started at the lowest practicable altitude and must be conducted with one engine inoperative.
( 3 ) The operating engines must be at the greatest power for which approval is sought (or at full throttle when above the critical altitude) for the same period as this power is used in determining the takeoff climbout path under § 29.59.
( 4 ) At the end of the time interval prescribed in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the power must be changed to that used in meeting § 29.67(a)(2) and the climb must be continued for— ( i ) Thirty minutes, if 30-minute OEI power is used; or
( ii ) At least 5 minutes after the occurrence of the highest temperature recorded, if continuous OEI power or maximum continuous power is used.
( 5 ) The speeds must be those used in determining the takeoff flight path under § 29.59.
( b ) *Category B.* For each category B rotorcraft, cooling must be shown during takeoff and subsequent climb as follows: ( 1 ) Each temperature must be stabilized while hovering in ground effect with— ( i ) The power necessary for hovering;
( ii ) The appropriate cowl flap and shutter settings; and
( iii ) The maximum weight.
( 2 ) After the temperatures have stabilized, a climb must be started at the lowest practicable altitude with takeoff power.
( 3 ) Takeoff power must be used for the same time interval as takeoff power is used in determining the takeoff flight path under § 29.63.
( 4 ) At the end of the time interval prescribed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the power must be reduced to maximum continuous power and the climb must be continued for at least five minutes after the occurance of the highest temperature recorded.
( 5 ) The cooling test must be conducted at an airspeed corresponding to normal operating practice for the configuration being tested. However, if the cooling provisions are sensitive to rotorcraft speed, the most critical airspeed must be used, but need not exceed the speed for best rate of climb with maximum continuous power.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-1, 30 FR 8778, July 13, 1965; Amdt. 29-26, 53 FR 34219, Sept. 2, 1988]
[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:****Sharp Ridge quadrangle, Oregon: 7.5-minute series (topographic)**
 
2012 | 2014 | 2015 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28/6:44118-G 7/
Item Number:0080-G-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000931976
 
January 24, 2018
EPA Region 9 Tribal Operations Committee Discussion of EPA’s Potential Reinterpretation of the 

Clean Water Act Provision Regarding Tribal Authority

April 30, 2014

Meeting Notes 

EPA Presenters: Wendell Smith, EPA Region 9 Water Division

Fred Leutner, EPA Office of Science and Technology

Participants: Members of the Region 9 RTOC (list not available)

Wendell Smith opened the session, and introduced Fred Leutner, participating via video conference from 

the Office of Science and Technology in EPA headquarters. Fred then gave a presentation on the potential 

reinterpretation of the TAS process, based on the briefing “Potential Reinterpretation of a Clean Water 

Act Provision Regarding Tribal Eligibility to Administer Regulatory Programs,” available at EPA’s 

website, http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm. 

The meeting continued with an opportunity for questions and comments from participants. The following 

is a list of questions and comments received from participants during the meeting. For each of the 

questions, the EPA presenters provided responses consistent with the presentation materials and other 

information available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm. Views 

and comments were acknowledged, and will be considered by EPA in developing the proposed rule. 

 The State of Nevada just removed state water quality standards from Tribal Waters. How will 

this relate to the TAS reinterpretation?

 Would a tribe that has nonmember-owned fee land still have to go through the Montana test 

anyway? For example, if the tribe or EPA tries to enforce permits in fee land, will they end up 

having to go through the Montana test anyway?
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 14.2

Deloitte & Touche, LLP
Assurance and Advisory Services
1 Place Ville-Marie
Suite 3000
Montreal QC H3B-4T9
Canada

Tel.: (514) 393-7115
Fax: (514) 390-4113
www.deloitte.ca

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Amdocs Limited of our report dated March 19, 2003 (except for Note
17 which is as of July 2, 2003), related to the consolidated financial
statements of Certen Inc., as of and for the years ended December 31, 2001 and
2002, appearing in this Annual Report of Amdocs Limited on Form 20-F for the
year ended September 30, 2003 filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on
December 24, 2003:

<Table>
<Caption>
COMMISSION FILE NO.           DESCRIPTION OF FILING
<C>                     <S>
     333-91847          Form S-8
     333-92705          Form S-8
     333-31506          Form S-8
     333-34104          Form S-8
     333-58454          Form S-8
     333-39278          Form F-3 (and related Prospectus)
     333-44994          Form F-3 (and related Prospectus)
     333-57036          Form F-3 (and related Prospectus)
     333-67572          Form F-3 (and related Prospectus)
</Table>

/s/ Deloitte & Touche, LLP

Montreal, Quebec
December 24, 2003
§ 25.351 Yaw maneuver conditions. The airplane must be designed for loads resulting from the yaw maneuver conditions specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section at speeds from VMC to VD. Unbalanced aerodynamic moments about the center of gravity must be reacted in a rational or conservative manner considering the airplane inertia forces. In computing the tail loads the yawing velocity may be assumed to be zero. ( a ) With the airplane in unaccelerated flight at zero yaw, it is assumed that the cockpit rudder control is suddenly displaced to achieve the resulting rudder deflection, as limited by: ( 1 ) The control system on control surface stops; or
( 2 ) A limit pilot force of 300 pounds from VMC to VA and 200 pounds from VC/MC to VD/MD, with a linear variation between VA and VC/MC.
( b ) With the cockpit rudder control deflected so as always to maintain the maximum rudder deflection available within the limitations specified in paragraph (a) of this section, it is assumed that the airplane yaws to the overswing sideslip angle.
( c ) With the airplane yawed to the static equilibrium sideslip angle, it is assumed that the cockpit rudder control is held so as to achieve the maximum rudder deflection available within the limitations specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
( d ) With the airplane yawed to the static equilibrium sideslip angle of paragraph (c) of this section, it is assumed that the cockpit rudder control is suddenly returned to neutral.
[Amdt. 25-91, 62 FR 40704, July 29, 1997]
#### § 31.20 Controllability.

The applicant must show that the balloon is safely controllable and maneuverable during takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing without requiring exceptional piloting skill.

[Amdt. 31-3, 41 FR 55474, Dec. 20, 1976]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1969

THE 16TH ST. DR., N.W. LAND HOLDERS AND/OR ECP TRUST, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

EDITH C. PETERSON, 

 Trustee – Appellant, 

 v. 

THE CITY OF HICKORY CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION IN N.C. 28601; 

CITY OF HICKORY; CITY OF HICKORY PLANNING BOARD; MICHAEL E. 

CASH, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cv-00074-RLV-DLH) 

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Edith C. Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley Philip Kline, 

CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Edith C. Peterson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order affirming the magistrate judge’s order that Peterson, a 

non-attorney, retain counsel to represent ECP Trust. This court 

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order 

Peterson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 

deny as moot Peterson’s motion requesting that this court deny 

her counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny Peterson’s motion for 

time to locate new counsel, and dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
#### MARTIN v. THE STATE.

(Decided May 30, 1916.)

Appeal from Autauga Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Pelham, P. J.

Appeal dismissed on authority of *Sanders v. State, infra,*70 South. 949.
Exhibit 32   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    In connection with the Amended Annual Report of Atlantica, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K/A-2 for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), we, Alan D. Gordon, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Shelley Goff, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:October 15, 2009By:/s/Alan D. GordonAlan D. Gordon, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director  Date:October 15, 2009By:/s/Shelley GoffShelley Goff, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer    1