alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,830
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,830
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,030
<OTHER-SE>                                         800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,830
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,112
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,112)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,112)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (1,000)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,112)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
#### § 65.13 Temporary certificate.

A certificate and ratings effective for a period of not more than 120 days may be issued to a qualified applicant, pending review of his application and supplementary documents and the issue of the certificate and ratings for which he applied.

[Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 65-23, 43 FR 22640, May 25, 1978]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1315

SABRINA RENEE BROWN, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

TOYS R US DELAWARE, INC., 

Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00043-RAJ-DEM) 

Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 30, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Sabrina Renee Brown, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Sabrina Renee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil 

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) without prejudice for failure to state a 

claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). 

Because it is possible that Brown could cure the defects in her complaint through 

amendment, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 

623-25, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 

10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Brown to 

file an amended complaint. 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. 

DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
# EUR-Lex - 31997D0337 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997D0337

**97/337/EC, Euratom: Council Decision of 27 May 1997 appointing a member of the Economic and Social Committee **

*
Official Journal L 144 , 04/06/1997 P. 0029 - 0029 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 27 May 1997 appointing a member of the Economic and Social Committee (97/337/EC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 195 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 167 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 94/660/EC, Euratom of 26 September 1994 appointing the members of the Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 1994 to 20 September 1998 (1),

Whereas a seat as a member of that Committee has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Ramón Merce Juste of which the Council was notified on 2 October 1996;

Having regard to the nominations submitted by the Spanish Government on 21 March 1997,

Having obtained the opinion of the Commission of the European Communities,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

Mr José María Espuny Moyano is hereby appointed a member of the Economic and Social Committee in place of Mr Ramón Merce Juste for the remainder of the latter's term of office, which runs until 20 September 1998.

Done at Brussels, 27 May 1997.

For the Council

The President

W. SORGDRAGER

(1) OJ No L 257, 5. 10. 1994, p. 20.
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010.

§ 47.3 Registration required. ( a ) An aircraft may be registered under 49 U.S.C. 44103 only when the aircraft is not registered under the laws of a foreign country and is— ( 1 ) Owned by a citizen of the United States;
( 2 ) Owned by an individual citizen of a foreign country lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States;
( 3 ) Owned by a corporation not a citizen of the United States when the corporation is organized and doing business under the laws of the United States or a State within the United States, and the aircraft is based and primarily used in the United States; or
( 4 ) An aircraft of— ( i ) The United States Government; or
( ii ) A State, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a political subdivision of a State, territory, or possession.
( b ) No person may operate an aircraft that is eligible for registration under 49 U.S.C. 44101-44104, unless the aircraft— ( 1 ) Has been registered by its owner;
( 2 ) Is carrying aboard the temporary authorization required by § 47.31(c); or
( 3 ) Is an aircraft of the Armed Forces of the United States.
( c ) Governmental units are those named in paragraph (a) of this section and Puerto Rico.
[Doc. No. 7190, 31 FR 4495, Mar. 17, 1966, as amended by Amdt. 47-20, 44 FR 61939, Oct. 29, 1979; Amdt. 47-27, 70 FR 244, Jan. 3, 2005; Amdt. 47-29, 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010; Doc. No. FAA-2015-7396; Amdt. 47-30, 80 FR 78645, Dec. 16, 2015]
#### COWLEY et v BOLANDER

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21320.

Decided May 22, 1929

Syllabus by

MATTHIAS, J.

AUTOMOBILES (50 Na2)

(50 A2bl) In an action for personal injuries resulting to the plaintiff from collision with an automobile while same was being towed by the defendant under employment of the owner of the disabled car, it was error to instruct the jury that as a matter of law the defendant was not liable for the negligent acts of the owner of the disabled car in guiding same, where the evidence tended to show that the defendant had taken .full charge and control of the operation and it was being conducted under his supervision, and that the owner’s assistance was rendered under the direction of the defendant.

In such case the instruction, “If you find from the evidence that by a voluntary independent act on his part, the driver of the automobile that, was being towed turned his automobile in such a manner as to strike the plaintiff and that the driver of the towing, automobile did nothing to bring about the accident, then I say to you as a "matter of law that your verdict must be for the defendants,” was prejudicial and warrnted a reversal of the judgment rendered for the defendant.

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Day and Allen, JJ, concur.
#### Anthony C. J. Seudath et al., Respondents, v Dorothy Mott et al., Defendants, and Russ Gusta, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff. Arthur Mott, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

[698 NYS2d 885]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant Arthur Mott appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated September 16, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant third-party plaintiff Russ Gusta.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the appellant, a third-party defendant, is aggrieved by the order denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing their complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant third-party plaintiff Russ Gusta, and thus may appeal from the order *(see,*CPLR 5511; *Ciraolo v Melville Ct. Assocs.,*221 AD2d 582).

The Supreme Court properly concluded that there are issues of fact as to whether Gusta assumed a duty to the injured plaintiff and, if so, whether his negligence, if any, was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained *(see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc.,*50 NY2d 507; *Wolf v City of New York,*39 NY2d 568; *Cohen v Heritage Motor Tours,*205 AD2d 105; *Gordon v Muchnick,*180 AD2d 715). Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WAS HINGTON , D

. C

. 20460



### VIA EMAIL
Di lip Kumar Dubey Business Manager-Latin America Polyplex USA LLC 3001 Mallard Fox Drive , NW Decatur , AL 35601-7576
Dear Mr. Dubey: 

## SEP 1 0 2014 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

This letter serve s as a response to your requests (May 1 3 and 14 , 2014 ) to add 2 P ol yp l ex films , black or white color , each with a polyethylene / metalized layer ( optical density of3.3) and 1.25 mil thickness , to the EPA soil fumigant tarp credit web s ite. The EPA has reviewed the laboratory tarp testing data for the Polyplex metalized films (MRIDs 49379401 and 49387001) s ubmitted by Ajwa Laboratory on behalfof Pol yp lex USA LLC. Based on the calculated mass transfer coefficients (MTCs) and the corresponding cut points determined by EPA as a basi s for assigni ng buffer zon e credits (DP Barcode 385314. Dawson, Smith and She/at
. "Second Update to Health Effects Division R e commendations for Good Agricultural Practices andAssociated Buffer Credits ." January 11 , 2011) , the tarps qualify for the following buffer zone reduction credits: 40% for met hyl bromide , 20% for chlorop i crin, 20% chlorop i crin and 1 ,3-dichloropropene, and 10% for inetam sodium or metam potassium. These tarps are also app roved with use of dimethyl disulfide. · The tarps will be lis t ed in its various co lors on the following EPA websites, http: //www.epa.gov / pesticides/tarocredits/ and http: //www.epa.gov/ oppsrrd 1/rer egistration/soil fumigants / dmds-tarps/
. as follows:

• Polyplex Black Metalized Film , 

### 2:: 1.25 mil • Polyplex White Metalized Film , 

### 2:: 1.25 milPlease contact me at (703) 308-2961 or at schroeder.carolvn@epa
. gov if you have any questions. Sincere l y,

# c~~~ Carolyn Schroeder Chemical Review Manager Risk Management & Implementation Branch IV Pesticide Re

- evaluation D i vi sion

Enclosures: DP Barcodes 420212 and 420264. Biological and Economic Analysis Divi s ion. "Data review of the permeability ofvarious fumi gants t hrough Polyplex B l ack Metalized Film (BEAN 420212) and Polyplex White Metalized Film (BEAN 420264) by Polyplex USA LLC , ACB Project #B 1 4-42." August 6, 20 1.4
. DP Barcode 422066. H ealth Effects D ivis i on . "Concurrence on BEAD Analyti ca l Chemis try Branch Review of Permeabi lity Data for Polyplex USA Black and Wh ite Metalized Films and C l assification of Results for Tarp Credit Purposes." September 9, 20 1 4.
exv10w3






Exhibit 10.3




[Investissement

Québec letterhead]




CONFIDENTIAL




October 30, 2009




Mr. Allen Dea and Mr. William G. Harvey

Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. and Donohue Corp.

1155 Metcalfe Street

Suite 800

Montréal, Québec H3B 5H2





			
	Object:	 	Amendment 32616

File D122527

Company V000475




Sirs,



With regards to the Offre de Guarantie de prêt (the “Offer”), made by Investissement Québec (“IQ”)
on May 6, 2009 and accepted on the same day by Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. and Donohue Corp.
(collectively, the “Company”), as it may have been subsequently modified, we wish to inform you
that IQ has modified the Offer in the following way:



Paragraph 4.1 of Section 4 entitled “TERM OF THE GUARANTEE” is modified and should now be read
as follows: 





	4.1	 	The Guarantee is issued from the date of the first disbursement of the DIP Loan, until June
15, 2010.




Please note that following the above modification extending the term of the guarantee, a payment of
a guarantee fee in the amount of two hundred and twenty thousand five hundred US dollars
(US$220,500) is required pursuant to Section 6 of the Offer.



All other terms and conditions of the Offer remain unchanged.



Please note that a payment of an amendment fee in the amount of three hundred twenty-five thousand
US dollars (US$325,000) is required for the coming into force of the present amendment.



Trusting the foregoing to be satisfactory, would you kindly notify your acceptance of the present
by returning the duplicate of this document duly signed before October 31, 2009, along with a
cheque in the amount of the required amendment fee and the additional guarantee fee.



Regards,




[Signed]




Iya Touré

Directeur du financement spécialisé




 









 





Page 2 of 3




ACCEPTANCE BY THE COMPANY



After having taken notice of the amendments appearing in this letter, we hereby accept these
changes and join a cheque in the amount of five hundred forty-five thousand five-hundred US dollars
(US$545,500) for the payment of the amendment fee and guarantee fee.




ABITIBI-CONSOLIDATED INC.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	 	 	Date:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

Signature
	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

Name of the signatory in block letters
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 






DONOHUE CORP.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	 	 	Date:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

Signature
	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

Name of the signatory in block letters
13281

#### MANNING *et al.*v. BRANDON CORPORATION

(161 S. E., 405)

*187*Messrs. Haynsworth & Haynsworth,*for appellant,

*Messrs. Park, McDonald & Todd, C. G. Wyche*and *Andrew A. Manning,*for respondent,

November 27, 1931.

*188The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. ChiEB Justice Beease.

The appellant’s “Statement of Facts,” found in the brief of its counsel, sets forth fairly, clearly, and concisely the facts necessary for an understanding of the issues involved in this cause. It and the order of his Honor, the late Circuit Judge John S. Wilson, appealed from, will be reported. The order is entirely satisfactory to this Court, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Messrs. Justices StabeEr, Carter and Bonham concur.

Mr. Justice Coti-iran disqualified.
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 Annual Report of Atlantica, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), We, Duane S. Jenson, President and Shelley Goff, Secretary of the Company, 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 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

| *Date:*** | *02/06/06*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/DUANE S. JENSON***                      |
|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|---------------------------------------------|
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Duane S. Jenson, President and Director*** |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | * *                                    |
| *Date:*** | *02/06/06*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/SHELLEY GOFF***                         |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Shelley Goff, Secretary and Director***    |
Editorial Note on Part 43
Editorial Note: For miscellaneous technical amendments to this part 43, see Amdt. 43-3, 31 FR 3336, Mar. 3, 1966, and Amdt. 43-6, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

§ 43.13 Performance rules (general). ( a ) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in § 43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.
( b ) Each person maintaining or altering, or performing preventive maintenance, shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition (with regard to aerodynamic function, structural strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting airworthiness).
( c ) *Special provisions for holders of air carrier operating certificates and operating certificates issued under the provisions of Part 121 or 135 and Part 129 operators holding operations specifications.* Unless otherwise notified by the administrator, the methods, techniques, and practices contained in the maintenance manual or the maintenance part of the manual of the holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate under Part 121 or 135 and Part 129 operators holding operations specifications (that is required by its operating specifications to provide a continuous airworthiness maintenance and inspection program) constitute acceptable means of compliance with this section.
[Doc. No. 1993, 29 FR 5451, Apr. 23, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 43-20, 45 FR 60182, Sept. 11, 1980; Amdt. 43-23, 47 FR 41085, Sept. 16, 1982; Amdt. 43-28, 52 FR 20028, June 16, 1987; Amdt. 43-37, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001]
# Tbl5_Summary

# image1.jpeg
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0427 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0427

**95/427/EC: Commission Decision of 16 October 1995 on the list of establishments in the Republic of Namibia approved for the purpose of importing meat products into the Community **

*
Official Journal L 254 , 24/10/1995 P. 0028 - 0029 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 16 October 1995 on the list of establishments in the Republic of Namibia approved for the purpose of importing meat products into the Community (Text with EEA relevance) (95/427/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine and fresh meat or meat products from third countries (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof,

Whereas establishments in third countries cannot be authorized to export meat products to the Community unless they satisfy the general and special conditions laid down in Directive 72/462/EEC;

Whereas, in accordance with Article 4 (3) of Directive 72/462/EEC, the Republic of Namibia forwarded the data of one establishment authorized to export to the Community;

Whereas a Community on-the-spot inspection has shown that the hygiene-standards of this establishment are sufficient and may therefore be entered on a first list of establishments from which imports of meat may be authorized;

Whereas imports of meat products from the establishment on the list in the Annex hereto continue to be the subject to provisions already laid down, the general provisions of the Treaty and in particular the other Community veterinary regulations, particularly as regards animal health protection;

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

1. The establishment in the Republic of Namibia listed in the Annex is hereby approved for the purposes of exporting meat products to the Community.

2. Imports from this establishment shall remain subject to the Community veterinary provisions laid down elsewhere, and in particular those concerning animal health protection.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 October 1995.

For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission

ANNEX

>TABLE>
#### § 437.75 [Reserved]
#### § 63.43 Flight engineer courses.

An applicant for approval of a flight engineer course must submit a letter to the Administrator requesting approval, and must also submit three copies of each course outline, a description of the facilities and equipment, and a list of the instructors and their qualifications. An air carrier or commercial operator with an approved flight engineer training course under part 121 of this chapter may apply for approval of a training course under this part by letter without submitting the additional information required by this paragraph. Minimum requirements for obtaining approval of a flight engineer course are set forth in appendix C of this part.
# L_2005082EN.01000701.xml

| 31.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 82/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 82/7

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/94 of 22 June 1994 laying down detailed rules for the application in the pigmeat sector of the import arrangements provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for pigmeat and certain other agricultural products

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 156 of 23 June 1994
  )

On page 14, the following second paragraph is added to Article 1:

‘The quantity of products which benefit from that regime and the level of customs duty are set out in Annex I.’;

on page 15, in the third subparagraph of Article 4(4):

for:

‘The corresponding security shall be released immediately.’,

read:

‘The Member States shall inform the Commission within five days following the withdrawal of the application for certificates and the corresponding security shall be released immediately.’

---