alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 93.313 Communications.

Except when in contact with the Grand Canyon National Park Airport Traffic Control Tower during arrival or departure or on a search and rescue mission directed by the U.S. Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, no person may operate an aircraft in the Special Flight Rules Area unless he monitors the appropriate frequency continuously while in that airspace.
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0536 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0536

**98/536/EC: Commission Decision of 3 September 1998 establishing the list of national reference laboratories for the detection of residues (notified under document number C(1998) 2487)(Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 251 , 11/09/1998 P. 0039 - 0042 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 3 September 1998 establishing the list of national reference laboratories for the detection of residues (notified under document number C(1998) 2487) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/536/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,

Whereas Article 14(1) of Directive 96/23/EC stipulates that at least one national reference laboratory is to be designated in each Member State for the detection of certain substances and residues so that each residue or group of residues is not assigned to more than one national reference laboratory; whereas in this connection, until 31 December 2000 the Member States may continue to entrust testing for the same residue or residue group to several national laboratories which they designated prior to the date of adoption of that Directive;

Whereas Article 14(1) of Directive 96/23/EC lays down the tasks of such national reference laboratories for the detection of residues and provides that the Commission is to draw up the list of such national reference laboratories;

Whereas the Annex to this Decision must be reviewed by 31 December 2000 at the latest;

Whereas, for reasons of legal clarity, certain provisions of Commission Decision 93/257/EEC of 15 April 1993 laying down the reference methods and the list of national reference laboratories for detecting residues (2) should be repealed;

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 national reference laboratories for the detection of residues designated pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 96/23/EC shall be as listed in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

Article 4 of Decision 93/257/EEC and the Annex thereto are hereby repealed.

Article 3

This Decision shall be reviewed by 31 December 2000 at the latest.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 September 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 125, 23. 5. 1996, p. 10.

(2) OJ L 118, 14. 5. 1993, p. 75.

ANNEX

>TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 31998R2782 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R2782

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2782/98 of 22 December 1998 establishing the forecast supply balances for cereal products and dried fodder for the smaller Aegean islands for 1999 and amending Regulation (EC) No 3175/94 laying down detailed rules of application for the specific supply arrangements **

*
Official Journal L 347 , 23/12/1998 P. 0015 - 0016 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2782/98 of 22 December 1998 establishing the forecast supply balances for cereal products and dried fodder for the smaller Aegean islands for 1999 and amending Regulation (EC) No 3175/94 laying down detailed rules of application for the specific supply arrangements

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 of 19 July 1993 introducing specific measures for the smaller Aegean islands concerning certain agricultural products (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2417/95 (2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2958/93 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1802/95 (4), lays down the common detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 as regards the specific arrangements for the supply of certain agricultural products to smaller Aegean islands, and pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93, the amount of aid for this supply;

Whereas, for the purposes of applying Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93, Commission Regulation (EC) No 3175/94 (5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1960/98 (6), establishes for 1998 the forecast supply balance for cereals; whereas the forecast supply balances for cereals and dried fodder should be established for 1999; whereas, with a view to clarity, the supply balances for cereals and dried fodder should be established in a separate Regulation; whereas Regulation (EC) No 3175/94 should therefore be amended;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Joint Committee of the relevant management committees,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93, the forecast supply balance for cereal products and dried fodder for the smaller Aegean islands originating in the rest of the Community in 1999 shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 3175/94 is hereby repealed.

Article 3

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

It shall apply from 1 January 1999.

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

Done at Brussels, 22 December 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 184, 27. 7. 1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 248, 14. 10. 1995, p. 39.

(3) OJ L 267, 28. 10. 1993, p. 4.

(4) OJ L 174, 26. 7. 1995, p. 27.

(5) OJ L 335, 23. 12. 1994, p. 54.

(6) OJ L 254, 16. 9. 1998, p. 13.

ANNEX

>TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 31997D0401 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997D0401

**97/401/EC: Commission Decision of 17 June 1997 amending Decision No 94/324/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Indonesia (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 166 , 25/06/1997 P. 0014 - 0017 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 17 June 1997 amending Decision No 94/324/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Indonesia (Text with EEA relevance) (97/401/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive No 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products (1), as last amended by Directive No 95/71/EC (2), and in particular Article 11 (5) thereof,

Whereas the list of establishments approved by Indonesia for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the Community has been drawn up in Commission Decision No 94/324/EC (3), as last amended by Decision No 96/31/EC (4); whereas this list may be amended following the communication of a new list by the competent authority in Indonesia;

Whereas the competent authority in Indonesia has communicated a new list adding 35 establishments, deleting 119 establishments, and amending the data of 11 establishments;

Whereas it is necessary to amend the list of approved establishments;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision have been drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down by Commission Decision No 90/13/EEC (5),

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex B of Decision No 94/324/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 June 1997.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 15.

(2) OJ No L 332, 30. 12. 1995, p. 40.

(3) OJ No L 145, 10. 6. 1994, p. 23.

(4) OJ No L 9, 12. 1. 1996, p. 6.

(5) OJ No L 8, 11. 1. 1990, p. 70.

ANNEX

'ANNEX B

LIST OF APPROVED ESTABLISHMENTS

>TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

November 9, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with the Truman Project to discuss the EPA/NHTSA Proposed Rulemaking 

for Greenhouse Gas and CAFE Standards for Model Year 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles

FROM: William Charmley, US EPA

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

This memo documents a meeting held on December 6, 2011 between representatives of the 

Truman Project and EPA to discuss the EPA/NHTSA Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas 

and CAFE Standards for Model Year 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles. This meeting took place 

in Washington, D.C., though two EPA participants were tied in by video-conference.

The meeting attendees from the Truman Project included Lauren Wolfe and Benjamin Lowe, and 

from EPA included Margo Oge, Chet France, and Bill Charmley.

The discussion topics were limited to comments from the Truman Project representatives 

regarding their overall support for the proposal due to the proposal’s positive impacts on energy 

security, climate change impacts, and American competitiveness. In addition, the Truman 

Project representatives asked for additional details regarding the upcoming public hearings for 

the proposal.
Exhibit
10.27


 


SUBSCRIPTION
AGREEMENT


 


This SUBSCRIPTION
AGREEMENT, dated as of September 30, 2009 (this “Agreement”), is by
and between Specialized Technology Resources, Inc. (the “Subscriber”),
and STR Holdings (New) LLC (the “Company”).


 


The Subscriber hereby
subscribes for, and the Company hereby accepts such subscription and agrees to
issue to the Subscriber 10 units representing membership interests in the
Company, in consideration for the payment to the Company by the Subscriber of
$1,000.00.


 


This Agreement shall be
governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware,
without regard to conflicts-of-law principles.


 


This
Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so
executed shall be deemed an original, but such counterparts shall together
constitute one and the same Agreement.


 


[The remainder of this page is
intentionally left blank.]


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and
year first written above.


 


	
   

  	
  Subscriber:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SPECIALIZED
  TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Company:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  STR
  HOLDINGS (NEW) LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  BARRY A. MORRIS

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Barry A. Morris

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Executive Vice
  President and Chief

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Financial Officer
vivakor_10q-ex1008.htm


    
      EXHIBIT
10.8

      


      PROMISSORY
NOTE MODIFICATION

      AND

      EXTENSION
AGREEMENT

      


      THIS
AGREEMENT is by and between IME Capital, LLC (hereinafter referred to as
“Investor”), and Vivakor, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
the “Holder”), and shall have an effective date of October 20, 2009.

      


      WITNESSETH:

      WHEREAS,
Investor previously executed a promissory note in an original principal amount
of Six Hundred Eight Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Dollars ($682,550.00) dated
August 21, 2009 (the “Promissory Note”); and

      


      WHEREAS,
Investor has encountered financial difficulties which make it impossible for
Investor to comply with the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note;
and

      


      WHEREAS,
the Promissory Note is currently due and payable in full; and

      


      WHEREAS,
Investor and Holder wish to modify the Promissory Note in accordance with the
terms and conditions
contained herein.

      


      NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the terms and
conditions, provisions and
covenants contained herein, Investor and Holder do hereby agree as
follows:

      


      1. The
Promissory Note shall be modified and extended as specified herein
below.

      


      2. The
Promissory Note is hereby amended, modified and extended related to the payment
of indebtedness evidenced thereby so that the total outstanding balance still
due and owing to Holder under the Promissory Note shall be due on the 31st day
of January, 2010, which is the modified and extended maturity date for the
Promissory Note.

      


      3.
Investor agrees to make the payment specified in Section 2 hereinabove, and
understands and agrees that:

      


      a.
Investor does not have any defenses, set-offs or counterclaims to the amount due
and owing to Holder under the Promissory Note as modified herein;

      


      b. All
the rights, remedies, stipulations and conditions contained in the Promissory
Note, shall also apply to any default in or failure to pay the modified payments
required hereunder;

      


      4. Save
and except for the modifications contained herein, the terms, conditions and
provisions of the Promissory Note, shall continue in full force and
effect.

      


      IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and
date set forth opposite their signatures show below.

      
 

    

    
      
        
          	
                  INVESTOR

                	
                  HOLDER

                
	
                  IME
      Capital, LLC 

                	
                  VIVAKOR,
      INC.

                
	 
      	 
      
	
                  By:
      /s/ Todd C.
      Smith 

                	
                  By:
      /s/Matt
      Nicosia

                
	 
      	 
      
	
                  Title:
      Manager

                	
                  Title:
      Executive
      Chairman
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-88375) pertaining to the ITXC Corp. Employee Stock Purchase Plan and
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-93613) pertaining to the ITXC Corp.
1998 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated February 9, 2001 (except for Note
18, as to which the date is March 12, 2001), with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of ITXC Corp. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


MetroPark, New Jersey
March 30, 2001
J-S48013-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

SHAWN L. BURTON 

 Appellant No. 1467 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the PCRA Order August 7, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0004017-1993 

 CP-02-CR-0004276-1993 

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., DONOHUE, J., and WECHT, J. 

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED OCTOBER 20, 2015 

 Appellant, Shawn L. Burton, appeals pro se from the PCRA court’s 

August 7, 2014 order denying his serial PCRA petition. We affirm. 

 The PCRA court ultimately dismissed Appellant’s serial PCRA petition as 

untimely; it should have dismissed the petition as premature. Appellant filed 

the instant PCRA petition while an appeal was pending from the dismissal of 

Appellant’s prior PCRA petition, docketed at 1459 WDA 2013. See 

Commonwealth v. Burton, ___ A.3d ___, 2015 WL 5076284 (Pa. Super., 

filed August 25, 2015) (en banc). Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal 

in that case, filed on September 11, 2015, is currently pending before our 

Supreme Court, docked in that Court at 367 WAL 2015. 

It is well-settled that “when an appellant’s PCRA appeal is pending 

before a court, a subsequent PCRA petition cannot be filed until the 
J-S48013-15 

- 2 - 

resolution of review of the pending PCRA petition by the highest state court 

in which review is sought, or upon the expiration of the time for seeking 

such review.” Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000). 

Thus, Appellant’s serial PCRA petition was prematurely filed and should have 

been dismissed as such.1 

 Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 10/20/2015 

____________________________________________ 

1

 Appellant alleges in the current PCRA petition the newly discovered facts 

exception to the PCRA timebar – apparently based upon facts different than 

those alleged in his still pending petition. If Appellant chooses to pursue the 

instant petition after the resolution of review of his prior petition, the 

subsequent petition must be filed “within sixty days of the date of the order 

which finally resolves the previous PCRA petition, because this is the first 

‘date the claim could have been presented.’” Larkin, 746 A.2d at 588 (citing 

42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2)).
§ 102.81 Review by the general counsel of refusal to proceed on charge; resumption of proceedings upon charge held during pendency of petition; review by the general counsel of refusal to proceed on related charge. ( a ) Where an election has been directed by the Regional Director or the Board in accordance with the provisions of §§ 102.77 and 102.78, the Regional Director shall decline to issue a complaint on the charge, and he/she shall so advise the parties in writing, accompanied by a simple statement of the procedural or other grounds for his/her action. The person making the charge may obtain a review of such action by filing an appeal with the general counsel in Washington, DC, and filing a copy of the appeal with the regional director, within 7 days from the service of the notice of such refusal by the regional director. In all other respects the appeal shall be subject to the provisions of § 102.19. Such appeal shall not operate as a stay of any action by the regional director.
( b ) Where an election has not been directed and the petition has been dismissed in accordance with the provisions of § 102.80, the regional director shall resume investigation of the charge and shall proceed in accordance with § 102.74.
( c ) If in connection with an 8(b)(7) proceeding, unfair labor practice charges under other sections of the Act have been filed and the Regional Director upon investigation has declined to issue a complaint upon such charges, he/she shall so advise the parties in writing, accompanied by a simple statement of the procedural or other grounds for his/her action. The person making such charges may obtain a review of such action by filing an appeal with the general counsel in Washington, DC, and filing a copy of the appeal with the regional director, within 7 days from the service of the notice of such refusal by the regional director. In all other respects the appeal shall be subject to the provisions of § 102.19.
[32 FR 9550, July 1, 1967, as amended at 51 FR 23749, July 1, 1986; 82 FR 43699, Sept. 19, 2017]
§ 89.545 Record retention. A person who submits a declaration of compliance under this subpart that is accepted by the Administrator must retain the following information for as long as the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module listed on that declaration of compliance is produced plus an additional 24 calendar months, and must make available for inspection by the Administrator the following: ( a ) The means of compliance, all documentation, and substantiating data related to the means of compliance used.
( b ) Records of all test results.
( c ) Any other information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the means of compliance so that the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module meets the remote identification requirements and the design and production requirements of this part.
#### LIVENGOOD v. MARKUSSON.

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist., Summit Co.

No. 1592.

Decided Nov. 14, 1928.

O. H. Corvington, Akron, for Livengood.

Robert I. Azar, Akron, for Markusson.

PER CURIAM.

The _ authorities generally support the proposition that at common law the owner of a domesticated cat or dog had such a property right therein as entitled him to maintain a civil action for the wrongful taking, killing, or injuring of the same.

In the case of State of Ohio v. Robert Lymus, 26 O. S. 400, it was decided that a dog was not the subject of larceny, but it was therein recognized that the right of property in dogs was protected by civil remedies at common law. And in a recent case, to wit, Hill v. Micham, 116 O. S. 549, it was held that the statutes of Ohio in reference to the registration and listing, of dogs for taxation, do not create a right of property therein, but that “apart from statutory provisions, it is generally held that an injuryy to or wrongful killing of a dog is such an invasion of property as amounts to a civil injury, which may be redressed by civil action”; and “This doctrine is the rule at common law and is supported by a large number of decisions from other states.”

The holding in the latter case disposes of the question presented in the case at bar; the trial court was wrong in determining that the owner of a domesticated cat does not have a property right thereiu which is protected in this state by civil remedies.

The judgment of the Municipal Court is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for trial.

Wiashburn, P. J., Punk, J., and Pardee, J. concur.
#### N Y C & ST L RD CO v KOVATCH

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21272.

Decided May 1, 1929

Syllabus by

ALLEN, J.

RAILROADS — Trial (590 E3a)

(500 D2e) When the issue upon the trial is the question whether a child has been killed upon ,a public street by the engine of a railway,' and there .is some evidence to show that an unidentified child screamed immediately after the accident that “The engine runned over David,” and there is evidence which justifies the inference that a child was standing at the time of the accident at a point where she could have observed the accident, it is not reversible error to refuse to exclude the testimony.

Marshall, CJ, Kinkade and Day, JJ, concur.
#### § 1627.7 Transcriptions and reports.

Every person required to maintain records under the Act shall make such extension, recomputation or transcriptions of his records and shall submit such reports concerning actions taken and limitations and classifications of individuals set forth in records as the Commission or its authorized representative may request in writing.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3046-0018)

(Pub. L. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*))

[44 FR 38459, July 2, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 63268, Dec. 31, 1981]