alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0528 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0528

**96/528/ECSC: Commission Decision of 29 February 1996 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Republic of Turkey on trade in products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community **

*
Official Journal L 227 , 07/09/1996 P. 0001 - 0002 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 29 February 1996 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Republic of Turkey on trade in products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (96/528/ECSC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 95, first paragraph thereof,

Whereas, following the Council Decision of 30 October 1995, the Commission finalized negotiations with Turkey for a free trade agreement between the Community and Turkey in products covered by the ECSC Treaty;

Having consulted the Consultative Committee and with the unanimous assent of the Council,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1. The Agreement between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Republic of Turkey on trade in products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community is hereby approved on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community.

2. The text of the Agreement is annexed to this Decision (1).

Article 2

The President of the Commission will, on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community, give the notification provided for in Article 20 of the Agreement.

Done at Brussels, 29 February 1996.

For the Commission

The President

Jacques SANTER

(1) See page 3 of the Official Journal.
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Lil Marc, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph P. Wynne,
principal financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   I have reviewed the Report;

      (2)   Based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue
            statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
            necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
            under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
            to the period covered by the Report; and

      (3)   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
            information included in the Report fairly present, in all material
            respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash
            flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the
            Report.

September 18, 2002


                                           /s/ Joseph P. Wynne
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Joseph P. Wynne
                                           Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
#### § 34.25 Non-volatile particulate emissions standards (nvPM).

The standards of this section apply to an aircraft engine of Class TF, T3, or T8 with a rated output greater than 26.7 kN that is manufactured after January 1, 2023. Where a maximum nvPMMC standard is expressed as a formula, calculate and round the standard to the nearest 1.0 μg/m3. Where an nvPMmass standard is expressed as a formula, calculate and round the standard to three significant figures or to the nearest 0.1 mg/kN. Where an nvPMnum standard is expressed as a formula, calculate and round the standard to three significant figures. Engines comply with an applicable standard if the test results show that the engine type certificate family's characteristic level does not exceed the numerical level of the nvPM standard when tested as described in subpart H of this part.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section;

(1) The characteristic level for the maximum nvPMMC expressed in units of μg/m3 must not exceed the following:

*nvPM**MC* = 10(3+2.9*r0*-0.274)

and

(2) The characteristic level for nvPM mass expressed in [mg/kN] and for nvPM number expressed in [particles/kN] must not exceed the following:

| Class | Rated output
(rO)
(kN) | nvPMmass
(mg/kN) | nvPMnum
(particles/kN) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TF, T3, T8 | 26.7 < rO ≤ 200 | 4646.9 − 21.497 (rO) | 2.669 × 1016 − 1.126 × 1014 (rO). |
| | rO > 200 | 347.5 | 4.170 × 1015. |

Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(2)

(b) For a change in type design by the type design holder, when the application for an amended type certificate is filed after January 1, 2023:

(1) If the engine qualifies as a derivative engine in accordance with § 34.48 of this part, no testing is required for the engine to use the same nvPM certificated parameters (nvPMmass, nvPMnum, and maximum nvPMMC) as the engine it is derived from; or

(2) If the engine does not qualify as a derivative engine in accordance with § 34.48 of this part, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with each requirement in paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) For issuance of an original type certificate when an application for type certification is filed after January 1, 2023, the applicant must demonstrate that the engine does not exceed:

(1) For maximum nvPMMC: as prescribed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and

(2) For the characteristic level for nvPMmass expressed in units of [mg/kN], and for nvPMnum expressed in units of [particles/kN], the following:

| Class | Rated output
(rO)
(kN) | nvPMmass
(mg/kN) | nvPMnum
(particles/kN) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TF, T3, T8 | 26.7 < rO ≤ 150 | 1251.1 − 6.914 (rO) | 1.490 × 1016 − 8.080 × 1013 (rO). |
| | rO > 150 | 214.0 | 2.780 × 1015. |

Table 2 to Paragraph (c)(2)

(d) For engines type certificated after January 1, 2023 and prior to May 24, 2024, compliance with this part must be demonstrated no later than August 22, 2024.

[Doc. No. FAA-2023-2434, Amdt. No. 34-7, 89 FR 31087, Apr. 24, 2024, as amended by Amdt. No. 34-7A, 89 FR 37972, May 7, 2024]
EXHIBIT 9Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:3454-11   Filed:07/09/18   Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37    Desc:Exhibit    Page 1 of 13

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:3454-11   Filed:07/09/18   Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37    Desc:Exhibit    Page 2 of 13

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:3454-11   Filed:07/09/18   Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37    Desc:Exhibit    Page 3 of 13

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:3454-11   Filed:07/09/18   Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37    Desc:Exhibit    Page 4 of 13

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:3454-11   Filed:07/09/18   Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37    Desc:Exhibit    Page 5 of 13

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:3454-11   Filed:07/09/18   Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37    Desc:Exhibit    Page 6 of 13

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:3454-11   Filed:07/09/18   Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37    Desc:Exhibit    Page 7 of 13

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:3454-11   Filed:07/09/18   Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37    Desc:Exhibit    Page 8 of 13

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:3454-11   Filed:07/09/18   Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37    Desc:Exhibit    Page 9 of 13

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:3454-11   Filed:07/09/18   Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37    Desc:Exhibit    Page 10 of 13

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:3454-11   Filed:07/09/18   Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37    Desc:Exhibit    Page 11 of 13

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:3454-11   Filed:07/09/18   Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37    Desc:Exhibit    Page 12 of 13

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:3454-11   Filed:07/09/18   Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37    Desc:Exhibit    Page 13 of 13
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4684 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, as the ‘‘Robert L. Brown Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4684 ES

1 SECTION 1. ROBERT L. BROWN POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 440 Arapahoe Street in 

4 Thermopolis, Wyoming, shall be known and designated as 

5 the ‘‘Robert L. Brown Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert L. Brown Post 

10 Office’’. 

Passed the Senate December 3, 2020. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4684 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Thermopolis, Wyoming, as the ‘‘Robert L. Brown al Service located at 440 Arapahoe Street in
§ 25.177 Static lateral-directional stability. ( a ) The static directional stability (as shown by the tendency to recover from a skid with the rudder free) must be positive for any landing gear and flap position and symmetric power condition, at speeds from 1.13 VSR1, up to VFE, VLE, or VFC/MFC (as appropriate for the airplane configuration).
( b ) The static lateral stability (as shown by the tendency to raise the low wing in a sideslip with the aileron controls free) for any landing gear and flap position and symmetric power condition, may not be negative at any airspeed (except that speeds higher than VFE need not be considered for flaps extended configurations nor speeds higher than VLE for landing gear extended configurations) in the following airspeed ranges: ( 1 ) From 1.13 VSR1 to VMO/MMO.
( 2 ) From VMO/MMO to VFC/MFC, unless the divergence is— ( i ) Gradual;
( ii ) Easily recognizable by the pilot; and
( iii ) Easily controllable by the pilot.
( c ) The following requirement must be met for the configurations and speed specified in paragraph (a) of this section. In straight, steady sideslips over the range of sideslip angles appropriate to the operation of the airplane, the aileron and rudder control movements and forces must be substantially proportional to the angle of sideslip in a stable sense. This factor of proportionality must lie between limits found necessary for safe operation. The range of sideslip angles evaluated must include those sideslip angles resulting from the lesser of: ( 1 ) One-half of the available rudder control input; and
( 2 ) A rudder control force of 180 pounds.
( d ) For sideslip angles greater than those prescribed by paragraph (c) of this section, up to the angle at which full rudder control is used or a rudder control force of 180 pounds is obtained, the rudder control forces may not reverse, and increased rudder deflection must be needed for increased angles of sideslip. Compliance with this requirement must be shown using straight, steady sideslips, unless full lateral control input is achieved before reaching either full rudder control input or a rudder control force of 180 pounds; a straight, steady sideslip need not be maintained after achieving full lateral control input. This requirement must be met at all approved landing gear and flap positions for the range of operating speeds and power conditions appropriate to each landing gear and flap position with all engines operating.
[Amdt. 25-135, 76 FR 74654, Dec. 1, 2011]
EXHIBIT 23.1

ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The
Board of Directors and Stockholders
24/7 Real Media, Inc.:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-112729, 333-111991, 333-109925, 333-108422, 333-106252, 333-100583, 333-89985,
333-47074, and 333-34020) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-100582, 333-87714, 333-83287, 333-66995, 333-56308, and
333-35306) on Form S-8 of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. of our report dated February 20, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of 24/7 Real
Media, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash
flows, for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of
24/7 Real Media, Inc.

| |  | /s/GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
| |  | ------------------------------

New
York, New York
March 24, 2004

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7024

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DONALD KIRKLAND,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting

by designation. (CR-89-391-JFM, CA-96-176-HNM)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Kirkland, Appellant Pro Se. John Vincent Geise, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court'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. United States v. Kirkland, Nos.

CR-89-391-JFM; CA-96-176-HNM (D. Md. May 30, 1996). We grant Appellant's motion to "withdraw" from filing an informal brief. 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
#### § 25.937 Turbopropeller-drag limiting systems.

Turbopropeller power airplane propeller-drag limiting systems must be designed so that no single failure or malfunction of any of the systems during normal or emergency operation results in propeller drag in excess of that for which the airplane was designed under § 25.367. Failure of structural elements of the drag limiting systems need not be considered if the probability of this kind of failure is extremely remote.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Henry L. Hall, Respondent, against Nell Brothers and Kern et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

(Argued September 30, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*541
      *John S. Leonard*for appellants.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Roy Wiedersum*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch. Loughran and Finch, JJ.
Exhibit
10.27


 


ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT OF SALE


 


This
Assignment of Agreement of Sale (this Assignment) is made to be effective as of August 19,
2009, by BEHRINGER HARVARD MULTIFAMILY OP I LP, a Delaware limited partnership (Assignor), and BEHRINGER HARVARD NOHO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Assignee).


 


BACKGROUND


 


A.             Assignor,
as Purchaser, entered into an Agreement of Sale with SF NO HO LLC, a California
limited liability company, as Seller, dated effective August 12, 2009 (the
Agreement),
covering the property located in North
Hollywood, California, commonly known as The Gallery at NoHo Commons, and more
particularly described in the Agreement.


 


B.              Assignor
wants to assign all of its interest in the Agreement to Assignee and Assignee
wants to accept the assignment.


 


AGREEMENT


 


For
good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged, Assignor
assigns to Assignee all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in, to and
under the Agreement, including, without limitation, all of Assignor’s interest
in the Earnest Money Deposit (as defined in the Agreement). Assignee accepts
the assignment and assumes and shall perform all of Assignor’s duties and
obligations under the Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing assignment and
assumption, Assignor shall remain liable for all of the obligations, as
Purchaser, under the Agreement.


 


	
   

  	
  ASSIGNOR:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  BEHRINGER
  HARVARD MULTIFAMILY OP I LP, 

  a Delaware limited partnership

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  BHMF
  Inc.,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  a
  Delaware corporation, 

  its general partner

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Gerald J. Reihsen, III

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Gerald
  J. Reihsen, III

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Executive
  Vice President

  



 


ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT OF SALE — The Gallery at NoHo Commons


 


1

















 


	
   

  	
  ASSIGNEE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  BEHRINGER
  HARVARD NOHO, LLC, 

  a Delaware limited liability company

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Gerald J. Reihsen, III

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Gerald
  J. Reihsen, III

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Executive
  Vice President-Corporate 

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Development
  & Legal and Secretary

  



 


2
§ 450.115 Flight safety analysis methods. ( a ) *Scope of the analysis.* An operator's flight safety analysis method must account for all reasonably foreseeable events and failures of safety-critical systems during nominal and non-nominal launch or reentry that could jeopardize public safety.
( b ) *Level of fidelity of the analysis.* An operator's flight safety analysis method must have a level of fidelity sufficient to— ( 1 ) Demonstrate that any risk to the public satisfies the safety criteria of § 450.101, including the use of mitigations, accounting for all known sources of uncertainty, using a means of compliance accepted by the Administrator; and
( 2 ) Identify the dominant source of each type of public risk with a criterion in § 450.101(a) or (b) in terms of phase of flight, source of hazard (such as toxic exposure, inert, or explosive debris), and failure mode.
( c ) *Application requirements.* An applicant must submit a description of the flight safety analysis methodology, including identification of: ( 1 ) The scientific principles and statistical methods used;
( 2 ) All assumptions and their justifications;
( 3 ) The rationale for the level of fidelity;
( 4 ) The evidence for validation and verification required by § 450.101(g);
( 5 ) The extent to which the benchmark conditions are comparable to the foreseeable conditions of the intended operations; and
( 6 ) The extent to which risk mitigations were accounted for in the analyses.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 26, 2012

d1217

Order 

December 26, 2012

144274(56)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144274

COA: 298780

Oakland CC: 2010-230802-FH

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MEISSNER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 20, 2012 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.

CAVANAGH, MARILYN KELLY, and HATHAWAY, JJ., would grant reconsideration 

and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.
EXHIBIT 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Robert M. Budd, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the periodic report, to which this Statement is attached, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report to which this Statement is attached, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC upon request.







Date:  April 4, 2008

By:/s/ Robert M. Budd

Robert M. Budd

Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32



Section 906 Certification



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Host Marriott Corporation, the general partner of
Host Marriott, L.P. (the Company) hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended: and



(ii) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: March 4, 2004



/s/ Christopher J. NassettaChristopher J. NassettaChief Executive Officer of Host Marriott Corporation/s/ W. Edward WalterW. Edward WalterChief Financial Officer of Host Marriott Corporation




The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### John Allen, Plaintiff in Error, v. State of Florida, Defendant in Error.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida.

Geo. A. Worley, for Plaintiff in Error.

Attorney General, for State.

Writ of Error dismissed on motion of Attorney General.
#### GRAND BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. THOMAS.

(Decided May 30, 1916.)

Appeal from Talladega City Court.

Heard before Hon. Marion H. Sims.

C. B. Powell, for -appellant. R. Williams, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.