alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31995A0172 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995A0172

**95/172/Euratom: Opinion of the Commission of 2 May 1995 concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the 'TU5' Basic Nuclear Facility at Pierrelatte (France) in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty (Only the French text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 114 , 20/05/1995 P. 0028 - 0028 *

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION of 2 May 1995 concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the 'TU5` Basic Nuclear Facility at Pierrelatte (France) in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty (Only the French text is authentic) (95/172/Euratom)

On 24 November 1994 the Commission of the European Communities received from the French Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, general data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste resulting from the operation for the 'TU5` Basic Nuclear Facility at Pierrelatte.

On the basis of these data and following consultation with the group of experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

1. The distance between the 'TU5` Basic Nuclear Installation and the territory of the nearest Member State, namely Italy, is 175 kilometres (Spain is 260 kilometres away).

2. Under normal operating conditions, gaseous and liquid effluent discharges will not cause exposure, significant from the point of view of health, of the population of another Member State.

3. Solid radioactive waste will be treated and temporarily stored at the site before being transported to an approved national site for final storage.

4. In the event of unplanned discharges of radioactive effluent which could result from an accident of the type and scale taken into account in the general data, doses liable to be received by the population of another Member State would not be significant from the health point of view.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste resulting from the operating of the 'TU5` Nuclear Facility is not liable, either in normal operation or in the event of an accident of the type and scale taken into account in the general data, to result in radioactive contamination, significant from the health point of view, of the waters, soil or airspace of another Member State.

This opinion is addressed to the French Republic.

For the Commission

Ritt BJERREGAARD

Member of the Commission
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30582-30583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11933]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2177-000]


Rainy River Energy Corporation; Notice of Issuance of Order

May 8, 2000.
    Rainy River Energy Corporation (Rainy River) submitted for filing a 
rate schedule under which Rainy River will engage in wholesale electric 
power and energy transactions as a marketer. Rainy River also requested 
waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Rainy River 
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability 
by Rainy River.
    On May 4, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:

[[Page 30583]]

    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Rainy River should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Rainy River is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance of assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Rainy River's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is June 5, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11933 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[No. 48319-6-I.

Division One.

October 28, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Custody of*J.M. Francis G. Hunt, et al., *Respondents,*v. Kira Horne, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-3-08290-6, J. Kathleen Learned, J., entered March 16, 2001. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Becker, C.J., and Schindler, J.
§ 420.70 Separation distance measurement requirements. ( a ) This section applies to all measurements of distances performed under §§ 420.63 through 420.69.
( b ) A launch site operator must measure each separation distance along straight lines. For large intervening topographical features such as hills, the launch site operator must measure over or around the feature, whichever is the shorter.
( c ) A launch site operator must measure each minimum separation distance from the closest hazard source, such as a container, building, segment, or positive cut-off point in piping, in an explosive hazard facility. When measuring, a launch site operator must: ( 1 ) For a public traffic route distance, measure from the nearest side of the public traffic route to the closest point of the hazard source; and
( 2 ) For an intraline distance, measure from the nearest point of one hazard source to the nearest point of the next hazard source. The minimum separation distance must be the distance for the quantity of energetic liquids or net explosive weight that requires the greater distance.
[Doc. No. FAA-2011-0105, 77 FR 55116, Sept. 7, 2012]
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-41013

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KHURRAN AHMED SHAH, 

also known as Bobby;

BABAR SHAH,

 Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:92-CR-7-14

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1997

Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendants appeal the denial of their motions to reconsider

the denial of the Government’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion. 

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own

motion if necessary. Mosely v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th

Cir. 1987). The defendants’ motions to reconsider were untimely

because they were not filed within ten days of the entry of the
No. 96-41013

-2-

district court's order denying the Government’s Fed. R. Crim. P.

35(b) motion. United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 58 n.2

(5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court was without

jurisdiction to consider the motions. Because the defendants

filed "unauthorized” motions, they have appealed from the denial

of “meaningless, unauthorized” motions. United States v. Early,

27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). This court affirms on the

alternative basis. Id.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders 

Actuate Corporation: 

 

We consent to incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-113545, 333-104101, 333-84582, 333-62600, 333-56906, 333-33720, 333-73015, and 333-59959) and in Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-67220 and 333-34410) of Actuate Corporationof our report dated March 16, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Actuate Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income(loss), and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2004, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in this December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Actuate Corporation. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Mountain View, California 

March 16, 2005 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements(Form S-8 Nos. 333-113545, 333-104101, 333-84582, 333-62600, 333-56906, 333-59959, 333-73015, and 333-33720) pertaining to the Actuate Corporation 1998 Equity Incentive Plan, Actuate Corporation 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Actuate Corporation1998 Non-Employee Directors Option Plan, Actuate Corporation 2001 Supplemental Stock Option Plan, First Amended and Restated Tidestone Technologies, Inc. Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan of 1999 and Tidestone Technologies, Inc. 1998 Incentive StockOption Plan and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-67220 and 333-34410) of Actuate Corporation and in the related prospectuses of our report dated January 26, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule ofActuate Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/    Ernst and Young LLP 

San Francisco, California 

March 16, 2005
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0141 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0141

**95/141/EC: Commission Decision of 10 April 1995 approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by Sweden (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 092 , 25/04/1995 P. 0025 - 0025 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 10 April 1995 approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by Sweden (Only the Swedish text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (95/141/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/539/EEC of 15 October 1990, on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 3 (2) thereof,

Whereas by letter dated 23 February 1995 Sweden transmitted a plan to the Commission;

Whereas the plan has been examined and found to meet the requirements of Directive 90/539/EEC, and in particular Annex II thereof;

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 plan submitted by Sweden for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs is hereby approved.

Article 2

Sweden shall bring into force by 1 April 1995 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden.

Done at Brussels, 10 April 1995.

For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission
#### HAAS v JENNINGS HAAS v LaPENAS HAAS v MURPHY

Ohio Supreme Court

Nos 21371-3-4.

Decided Apr 24, 1929

Syllabus by

ROBINSON, J.

CONTEMPT OF COURT

(145) An executive officer has only such power to punish for contempt as has been expressly conferred upon him by legislative act or by constitutional or charter provision. COURTS

(180 M2) A charter provision that confers upon the mayor the “power to cause the witness to be punished ‘ as for contempt”, without defining the mode or extent of the punishment, is not self-executing.

The provisions of Sections 3515-37 and 3515-59, General Code, are not effective to invest the mayor of a municipality with a power to punish for contempt, for the reason that they do not define the extent of the punishment.

Kinkade, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,790
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             300
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                13,500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     33,776
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,884
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         79,289
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,123
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,097
<DEPOSITS>                                     130,521
<SHORT-TERM>                                       150
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,046
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,501
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 142,097
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,735
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  626
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,361
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 849
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 851
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,509
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       60
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    326
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         326
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       245
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                        626
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   289
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,441
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,055
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        2
<RECOVERIES>                                        10
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,123
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,038
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             85
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5


<CAPTION>

Article 5 Fin. Data Schedule for 1st Qtr 10-Q

<S>                               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                     0
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 27,725
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                               4,200
<OTHER-SE>                           (27,725)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               0
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        (20,355)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                         (20,335)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.02)



</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22-0318
STATE OF MONTANA,

plaintiffand Appellee.

v. CHRISTOPHER WILLET,

Defendant and Appellant. 6 

### DEC 0 6 2022 BL)WE:n Urea nwood C,

_ U - Cowl

nf Montane ORDER

Christopher Scott Willet appeals his sentence on revocation ofa suspended seven-year sentence for felony Criminal Endangerment, a violation of § 45-5-207, MCA, to which he pleaded guilty in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. The District Court'sjudgrnent on revocation imposed a seven-year prison term with twoyears suspended, reimposed all ofthe prior terms ofconditions ofcommunity supervision from the October 2021judgment, and ordered the forfeiture and disposal of the weapons seized from Willet's home during a probation search. Willet argues that the District Court lacked statutory authoritytoorderthe forfeiture ofhis firearmsand that it violated his constitutional rightsin orderingthe forfeiture without requisite due process of law. Finally, he maintains that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the court's forfeiture order. Without agreeingto all ofhis arguments, the State concedes that under the particular factspresented in this record and in the interests ofjustice,this matter should beremanded to the District Court with instructionsto strike the forfeiture portion ofWillet's Judgrnent and Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc. The State agrees that the applicable statutes did not give the sentencing court authority to order the forfeiture ofWillet's firearms when it revoked his suspended sentence. 12/06/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0318Having reviewed the parties' submissions, and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is remanded to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court with instructions to issue an amendedjudgment striking paragraph 5 from its April 27, 2022 Judgment and Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc in Lincoln County CauseNo.DC-21-14 that requires the Defendant to "surrender to the Lincoln County Sheriffs [sic] Office the firearms that
were confiscated by the Probation and Parole Officer." In all other respects, this appeal is DISMISSED. The Clerk is instructed to provide copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord and to the Honorable Matthew J. Cuffe, presiding District Judge. Dated this 

## .4. ray ofDecember, 2022.
Exhibit 4.3

Form of Employment Agreement  Members of the Board of Management

The undersigned:

and

Whereas:

Declare to have agreed as follows:

1.    Date of Commencement of Employment and Position



2.    Duration of the Agreement and Notice of Termination



3.    Salary



4.    Short Term Incentive Bonus Plan



---

5.    Long Term Incentive Option Plan



6.    Long Term Incentive Share Plan



7.    Holidays



8.    Company Car



9.    Expenses



10.  Telephone Costs



2

---

11.  Insurance



12.  Disability



13.  Pension



14.  Early retirement



15.  Applicable Provisions of the TPG-CAO



3

---

16.  Duties



17.  No additional occupation



18.  Supervisory Board memberships



19.  Confidentiality and Documents



20.  Non-Competition



4

---

21.  Penalty



22.  Severance payment in case of a Change in Control







23.  Amendments, Previous Agreements and prevailing language



5

---



24.  Governing Law



This
agreement has been signed and executed in Hoofddorp in duplicate this

|                                  |  | [    ] XXXX.  
|--------------------------------- |  | --------------
|                                  |  |               
|The Company:                      |  | The Executive:
|                                  |  |               
|                                  |  |               
|Mr. XXXXXX,                       |  | Mr. XXXXXX    
|Chairman of the Supervisory Board |  |               

6

---

QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*David Dab, Appellant.

Submitted March 22, 1937;

decided March 25, 1937.

*William Copeland Dodge, District Attorney (Le Roy Mandle*of counsel), for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed.
§ 382.95 What are carriers' general obligations with respect to boarding and deplaning assistance? ( a ) As a carrier, you must promptly provide or ensure the provision of assistance requested by or on behalf of passengers with a disability, or offered by carrier or airport operator personnel and accepted by passengers with a disability, in enplaning and deplaning. This assistance must include, as needed, the services of personnel and the use of ground wheelchairs, accessible motorized carts, boarding wheelchairs, and/or on-board wheelchairs where provided in accordance with this part, and ramps or mechanical lifts.
( b ) As a carrier, you must, except as otherwise provided in this subpart, provide boarding and deplaning assistance through the use of lifts or ramps at any U.S. commercial service airport with 10,000 or more annual enplanements where boarding and deplaning by level-entry loading bridges or accessible passenger lounges is not available.