alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0757 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 31999D0757

**1999/757/EC: Commission Decision of 5 November 1999 amending Decision 97/467/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of rabbit meat and farmed game meat (notified under document number C(1999) 3583) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 300 , 23/11/1999 P. 0025 - 0026 *

COMMISSION DECISION

of 5 November 1999

amending Decision 97/467/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of rabbit meat and farmed game meat

(notified under document number C(1999) 3583)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(1999/757/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs(1), as last amended by Council Decision 98/603/EC(2), and in particular Article 2(4) thereof,

(1) Whereas provisional lists of establishments producing rabbit meat and farmed game meat have been drawn up by Commission Decision 97/467/EC(3) as last amended by Commission Decision 98/556/EC(4);

(2) Whereas New Caledonia has sent a list of establishments producing rabbit meat and farmed game meat and for which the responsible authorities certify that the establishments are in accordance with Community rules;

(3) Whereas a provisional list of establishments producing rabbit meat and farmed game meat can thus be drawn up for New Caledonia;

(4) Whereas Commission Decision 97/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly;

(5) 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 text of the Annex to this Decision is added to the Annex of Decision 97/467/EC.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 6 November 1999.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 November 1999.

For the Commission

David BYRNE

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 289, 28.10.1998, p. 36.

(3) OJ L 199, 26.7.1997, p. 57.

(4) OJ L 266, 1.10.1998, p. 86.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

Territorio: Nueva Caledonia/Territorium: Ny Kaledonien/Gebiet: Neukaledonien/Περιοχή: Νέα Καληδονία/Territory: New Caledonia/Territoire: Nouvelle-Calédonie/Territorio: Nuova Caledonia/Gebied: Nieuw-Caledonië/Território: Nova Caledónia/Alue: Uusi-Kaledonia/Territorium: Nya Kaledonien

>TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

VIA EMAIL 

Dilip 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 serves as a response to your requests (May 13 and 14, 2014) to add 2 Polyplex 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 website. 

The EPA has reviewed the laboratory tarp testing data for the Polyplex metalized films (MRIDs 

49379401 and 49387001) submitted by Ajwa Laboratory on behalfof Polyplex USA LLC. 

Based on the calculated mass transfer coefficients (MTCs) and the corresponding cut points 

determined by EPA as a basis for assigning buffer zone credits (DP Barcode 385314. Dawson, 

Smith and She/at. "Second Update to Health Effects Division Recommendations for Good 

Agricultural Practices and Associated Buffer Credits." January 11, 2011), the tarps qualify for 

the following buffer zone reduction credits: 40% for methyl bromide, 20% for chloropicrin, 20% 

chloropicrin and 1 ,3-dichloropropene, and 10% for inetam sodium or metam potassium. These 

tarps are also approved with use of dimethyl disulfide. · 

The tarps will be listed in its various colors on the following EPA websites, 

http://www.epa.gov/ pesticides/tarocredits/ and 

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd 1/reregistration/soil fumigants/dmds-tarps/. as follows: 

• Polyplex Black Metalized Film, 2:: 1.25 mil 

• Polyplex White Metalized Film, 2:: 1.25 mil 
Please contact me at (703) 308-2961 or at schroeder.carolvn@epa.gov if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

c~~~ Carolyn Schroeder 

Chemical Review Manager 

Risk Management & Implementation Branch IV 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

Enclosures: DP Barcodes 420212 and 420264. Biological and Economic Analysis Division. 

"Data review of the permeability ofvarious fumigants through Polyplex Black 

Metalized Film (BEAN 420212) and Polyplex White Metalized Film (BEAN 

420264) by Polyplex USA LLC, ACB Project #B14-42." August 6, 201.4. 

DP Barcode 422066. Health Effects Division. "Concurrence on BEAD Analytical 

Chemistry Branch Review of Permeability Data for Polyplex USA Black and 

White Metalized Films and Classification of Results for Tarp Credit 

Purposes." September 9, 2014.
#### § 100.608 Subdivision of claims or debts.

A debt may not be subdivided to avoid the monetary ceiling established by 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2) and 29 CFR 100.604.
#### CUMMINGS, Admr. v TOLEDO (city)

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co.

No. 2079.

Decided Nov. 26, 1928.

Benjamin B. Moses, Toledo, for Cummings.

Martín S. Dodd and Mark Winchester, Toledo, for city.

LLOYD, J

Whether or not at common law municipalities, in the care and control of public parks, exercise proprietary or governmental functions, is not important in this case in view of Section 3714 of the General Code, which provides:

> “Municipal corporations shall have special power to regulate the use of the streets, to be exercised in the manner provided by law. The council shall have the c,are, supervision and control of public highways, streets, avenues, alleys, sidewalks, public grounds, bridges, aqueducts, and viaducts, within the corporation, and shall cause them to be kept open in repair and free from nuisance."

The term “public grounds” ,as included therein has been held to include municipally owned and controlled parks. Cleveland vs. Ferrando, 114 Ohio St., 297. So the question involved here is whether or not the duty did not devolve upon the City of Toledo to exercise ordinary care to keep the drains free and clear, so that the water might .pass from these ponds into the creek beyond the Terminal’ railroads. .

The error of which complaint is made being the direction of a verdict by the trial court, the evidence contained in the record must be considered most favorably to the plaintiff in error. As the record now stands, the clogging of the drain placed by the city at the Terminal tracks caused the retention of the water in, and created the pond and the increased and hidden depth *62of water in the ditch therein, where young Cummings was drowned, and this condition had existed for some two or three years. At the time of the occurence there were no guards to prevent the decedent and the other children from wading and swimming in the pond and in the deeper water of the ditch, nor any signs to warn them of the danger in so doing. Although unimproved, Ravine Park was none the less a public park where children had a right to resort unless by some enforced regulation they were prohibited therefrom, and where as a matter of fact they had gone without restriction during several summers preceding. In our opinion the questions of the alleged negligence of the city, of what was the proximate cause of Cumming’s death and whether or not he was guilty of contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury.

The judgment of the court of common pleas is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Richards and Williams, JJ, concur.
#### Eber Bros. Wine & Liquor Corp. et al., Respondents, v Ian Ribowsky et al., Appellants.

[698 NYS2d 725]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for conversion, the defendants appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered March 24, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel disclosure and denied their cross motion to strike the notice to produce and for a protective order, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered July 29, 1998, as, upon granting reargument, adhered to the prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered March 24, 1998, is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered July 29, 1998, is reversed *500insofar as appealed from, the motion is denied, and the cross motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellants.

On June 10, 1997, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in open court in which the defendants agreed not to use confidential information obtained from the plaintiffs, their former employers, to solicit business from certain of the plaintiffs’ wine suppliers for an 18-month period. Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved on three separate occasions in July and August 1997 seeking to hold the defendants in contempt for violating the terms of the stipulation of settlement with respect to three wine suppliers. The motions were denied in August and September 1997 for lack of proof, and the denials were affirmed by decision and order of this Court *(see, Eber Bros. Wine & Liq. Corp. v Ribowsky,*252 AD2d 513).

After the denial of their motions to hold the defendants in contempt, the plaintiffs moved in November 1997 to compel the production of documents pertaining to the alleged breaches of the stipulation of settlement. The defendants cross-moved, *inter alia,*for a protective order. In the orders appealed from the court granted the motion and denied the cross motion. We reverse.

The court has broad discretion to supervise disclosure to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice *(see generally,*CPLR 3103 [a]; *Wegman v Wegman,*37 NY2d 940; *Annexstein v Annexstein,*202 AD2d 1060). The plaintiffs’ previous motions to hold the defendants in contempt were denied due to the absence of evidence to support the allegations that confidential information was used to obtain the suppliers’ business; rather, the evidence established that the defendants obtained the orders from the wine suppliers because of longstanding business and personal relationships. Under these circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to grant the broad discovery requested by the plaintiffs. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### Bernard Fromartz, Respondent, v Al Bodner et al., Appellants.

[698 NYS2d 142]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered May 28, 1998, denying defendants’ motion to vacate their default, and order, same court and Justice, entered August 25, 1998, directing entry of judgment in the sum of $139,335, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion to vacate granted.

Given our preference for disposition of cases on the merits *(see, Santora & McKay v Mazzella,*211 AD2d 460, 463; *DFI Communications v Golden Penn Theatre Ticket Serv.,*87 AD2d 778, 779), we find that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to vacate their default where they had demonstrated both a meritorious defense to this action and a reasonable excuse for their default. In this regard, counsel’s actual engagement in Family Court constituted a reasonable excuse for the default under the circumstances *(Abate v Long,*261 AD2d 252; *Salerno v Geller,*260 AD2d 153). Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
§ 1471.880 What factors may influence the debarring official during reconsideration? The debarring official may reduce or terminate your debarment based on— ( a ) Newly discovered material evidence;
( b ) A reversal of the conviction or civil judgment upon which your debarment was based;
( c ) A bona fide change in ownership or management;
( d ) Elimination of other causes for which the debarment was imposed; or
( e ) Other reasons the debarring official finds appropriate.
§ 15.1 What is the scope and purpose of this part? ( a ) The regulations in this part provide procedures to be followed for claims asserted against the Department of Labor under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671, *et seq.,* under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act of 1964, 31 U.S.C. 3721, and for claims arising out of the operation of Job Corps Centers under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, 29 U.S.C. 2897(b).
( b ) Subpart B of this part provides the procedures followed in processing claims asserted under the Federal Tort Claims Act, as amended, for money damages against the United States for injury to or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an officer or employee of the Department of Labor while acting within the scope of his or her office or employment. This subpart is issued subject to and consistent with applicable regulations on administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act issued by the Attorney General (28 CFR part 14).
( c ) Subpart C of this part provides the procedures for processing claims filed by or on behalf of employees of the Department of Labor for loss of or damage to personal property incident to their service with the Department under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act of 1964.
( d ) Subpart D of this part provides the procedures used in processing claims relating to damage to persons or property arising out of the operation of Job Corps, pursuant to the Workforce Investment Act, including damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, damage to personal property of Job Corps students, and claims which the Secretary of Labor finds to be a proper charge against the United States but which are not cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3931-3932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1268]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 224: Airport Security 
Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 224 Meeting: Airport Security 
Access Control Systems (Update to DO-230B).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 224: Airport Security Access Control 
Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 8, 2011, from 10 a.m. to 5 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036 in the MacIntosh-NBAA Room and Hilton-
ATA Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036, telephone (202) 833-9339, fax (202) 
833-9434, Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal

[[Page 3932]]

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., and Appendix 2), 
notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 224, Airport Security 
Access Control Systems (Update to DO-230B):

Agenda

February 8, 2011

     Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks.
     Review/Approve Summary--Third Meeting.
     Report on Security Construction Guidelines Process.
     Workgroup Reports.
     Credentialing.
     PACS.
     Biometrics.
     Communications.
     Video.
     Other Input from Members.
     Assignments for Final Review.
     Other Business.
     Establish Agenda for Next Meeting.
     Date and Place of Next Meeting.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 14, 2011.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-1268 Filed 1-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.1






Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The undersigned, Daniel Dror, CEO and Chairman of American International Industries, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011.






The undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of American International Industries, Inc. and results of its operations.






Date:  May 13, 2011


Daniel Dror


Chairman


/s/ Daniel Dror
TERENCE CORNELIOUS LEWIS

,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1411

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 17, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Michael G. Allen

, Judge

.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Colleen Dierdre Mullen, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, and Jessica Judith Dasilva, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS

, ROWE

, and OSTERHAUS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### In the Matter of Kimberly A. K., Respondent, v Ronald F. G., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2)

[697 NYS2d 790]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent, by engaging in acts that constitute harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [3]), willfully violated a prior order of protection *(see, Matter of Tina T. v Steven U.,*243 AD2d 863, 864, *lv denied*91 NY2d 805; *Matter of Boyd v Boyd,*193 AD2d 1039, 1040; *Matter of Maryanne PP. v Richard QQ.,*192 AD2d 747, 748). “[I]n view of Family Court’s advantage of hearing the witnesses, its credibility determinations are not to be lightly set aside” *(Matter of Maryanne PP. v Richard QQ., supra,*at 748). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Morgan, J. — Family Offense.) Present— Denman, P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
#### Joseph Blondin *vs.*The Connecticut Company. Archie Blondin *vs.*The Connecticut Company.

Third Judicial District.

Argued October 25th, 1916—

decided January 25th, 1917.

Actions to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the jury before *Bennett, J.;*by direction of the court the jury rendered a verdict for the defendant in each case, and from the judgment thereon the respective plaintiffs appealed.

*Error and new trial ordered.*

*William E. Thoms*and *Philip N. Bernstein,*for the appellants (the respective plaintiffs).

*Joseph F. Berry,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

The above-entitled actions were tried together upon the same evidence, and a verdict in each case was directed for the defendant. We think the record shows that there was evidence upon which the cases should have been submitted to the jury.

There is error and a new trial is ordered in each case.
[No. 20392-1-III.

Division Three.

January 7, 2003.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jasmin J. Smajlovic, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 99-1-00498-5, Carolyn A. Brown, J., entered October 10, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kurtz, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Kato, J.
#### In the Matter of the Petition of George Hoffman to Vacate an Assessment.

_ Appeal by the administrator of the above-named petitioner from a special term order denying a motion to revive the proceeding.

*Charles E. Miller,*for app’lt; *George L. Sterling,*for the mayor, etc., of New York, resp’t.

Bartlett, J.

No order was made in this case, subsequent to the death of the petitioner, purporting to vacate or reduce the assessment; but otherwise the facts are not materially different from those presented in the *Matter of Barney (ante,*p. 752), decided herewith ; and for the reasons given in the opinion in that case, the order appealed from should be affirmed.

Van Brunt, Ch. J., and Macomber, J., concur.