alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31998R2491 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R2491

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2491/98 of 18 November 1998 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products **

*
Official Journal L 309 , 19/11/1998 P. 0028 - 0034 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2491/98 of 18 November 1998 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 of 6 December 1993 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1097/98 (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,

Whereas, since this Regulation was adopted, the Community's Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature (Combined Nomenclature) had been amended; whereas the Annexes to the Regulation should therefore be updated,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 18 November 1998.

For the Commission

Martin BANGEMANN

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 318, 20. 12. 1993, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 157, 30. 5. 1998, p. 1.

ANNEX

'ANNEX B

>TABLE>

>TABLE>
#### § 18.805 Hearsay within hearsay.

Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6664

TYRONE D. ROBINSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-96-684)

Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone D. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to exercise of jurisdiction by a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1994).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order* denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Robinson v. Angelone, No. CA-96-684

(E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**
**FAA -**  **2015 -**  **3877** Docket Number
**2015 -**  **SW -**  **039 -** **AD** Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Airbus Helico pters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS332 - 05.01.02, Revision 0, dated July 22, 2015


### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DUR ING THE HOURS OF:**  9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
#### Wm. W. Flournoy, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Interstate Electric Company, a Corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

1. A witness may testify as to facts constituting his agency.

2. The refusal to instruct must be excepted to at the time of refusal, to avail as error.

3. When alleged instructions appear only in the assignments of error, they will not be considered.

This case was decided by Division A.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Walton County.

. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Wm. W. Flournoy,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*W. 0. Butler,*for Defendant in Error.

Cockrell, J.

The Electric Company obtained judgment upon the common counts for electrical supplies furnished the plaintiff in error for a building, which was burned before the work was completed.

There is no error assigned upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial and we are not therefore concerned with the sufficiency of the evidence nor the alleged excessiveness of the verdict, which is in proper form.

*217The rule rendering inadmissible an extra judicial statement as to agency does not forbid a witness upon the stand testifying as to facts constituting his agency. The agency was sufficiently shown, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to be assumed as a fact by the court.

To avail as error, the refusal to instruct must be ex cepted to at the time, and where the supposed instruction appears only in the assignments of error, it will not be considered.

While several of the charges given are assigned for error they do not appear to have been excepted to either at the time they were given, or in the motion for a new trial, and are not properly before us.

There is one charge possibly here for consideration, which is briefly referred to in the motion for new trial, to the effect that delivery to a common carrier is delivery to the defendant. No objection is made to this as an abstract charge and under the circumstances of this case we And no objection to it here. If any qualification of the charge had been desired, it should have been requested.

We find no error and the judgment is affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford, J., concur;

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
# EUR-Lex - 31998R1207 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R1207

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1207/98 of 10 June 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81 on the granting of aid for the purchase of butter by non-profit-making institutions and organisations **

*
Official Journal L 166 , 11/06/1998 P. 0037 - 0037 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1207/98 of 10 June 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81 on the granting of aid for the purchase of butter by non-profit-making institutions and organisations

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1587/96 (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2196/95 (4), provides for the grant of aid for the purchase of butter by non-profit-making institutions and organisations; whereas in view of the current situation on the butter market and the level of sales under this Regulation, the aid amount must be reduced;

Whereas the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81, 'ECU 139` is replaced by 'ECU 105`.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 10 June 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13.

(2) OJ L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 213, 1. 8. 1981, p. 20.

(4) OJ L 221, 19. 9. 1995, p. 1.
Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Daniel Dror, CEO, President 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-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2006.

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 report fairly presents, in all
respects, the financial condition of American International Industries Inc. and results of
its operations.

Date: November 10, 2006
Daniel Dror
Chairman/s/ Daniel Dror
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Williams quadrangle, Oregon :7.5 minute series (topographic)**
 
2012 | 2014 | 2015 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28/6:42123-B 3/
Item Number:Link0080-G-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000932346
 
January 25, 2018
#### WEENINK & SONS CO v WELDY

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 9855.

Decided September 16, 1929

Arthur P. Gustafson, Cleveland, for Weenink & Sons Co.

Carl D. Aigner and F. D. Bishop, Cleveland, for Weldy.

*622SULLIVAN, J.

Our interpretation of the language of the mortgage precludes any reference on the part of this language to computations on defaulted interest because no interest had been paid and reference could only be had by the use of this language, to the principal named in the notes. If the mortgage so read that it referred to overdue interest then we think there would be some ground for the holding of the court below because there w,as no provision in the notes as to any payment excepting six percent for defaulted interest and it might reasonably be said from the record that the language of the mortgage having reference only to interest was not repugnant to any clause or provision contained in the notes.

It is impossible to exclude the importance of the notes from the transaction even though the suit is upon foreclosure of the mortgage because if the notes had been disposed of certainly upon s.uit there could be no recovery for more than six percent notwithstanding the clause in the mortgage for eight percent because figuring it at eight percent would produce an amount that was more than a computation of the interest on the principal of the notes warranted or demanded. In order to recover for more than the amount of interest named in the notes it would not only have to be shown that the transaction was simultaneous but that no situation arose that would make the notes repugnant to the mortgage on such a vital proposition as the rate of interest. The mortgage was the security for the. indebtedness. The indebtedness consisted of notes and the total amount due thereon would have to be figured according to the contents of the notes unless it would áppear that the transaction was one in entirety and that the parties agreed to the opposing terms but even then it is our judgment that the figuration could not be at eight percent because of the aforesaid repugnance. A reasonable construction of the clause in the mortgage referring to 8% is that the person who drafted it used the term “overdue payments” when from the circumstances in the case it referred to principal instead of interest and it is clearly as reasonable to conclude that when the language “overdue payments” was used, by an error of expression, the word “interest” was not included and if it had been, the notes and mortgage might have been considered harmonious and the clause in the mortgage as to eight percent on defaulted interest instead of payments would probably be enforceable although we do not pass upon this question excepting by way of obiter dictum at this time.

We think a case that applies to our views of the situation is McClelland v. Bishop, 42 OS. 113.

Thus holding the judgment of the lower court is modified, and judgment will be entered as modified on the ground that the judgment is excessive under the figuration of the rate of interest inserted in the mortgage.

Vickery, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.
#### § 1602.25 Exemption from reporting requirements.

If it is claimed that the preparation or filing of Report EEO-3 would create undue hardship, the labor organization may apply to the Commission for an exemption from the requirements set forth in this part.

[32 FR 10651, July 20, 1967]
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

102) ll-E-62 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:06 AM Sheet 102 of 264 
03/13/97 THU 16:35 FAX 601 245 4489 

02/28/97 15:57 ©19199410234 

UNITED TECH. HUMAN RES. 

PES RTP NC @003/403 

l_UU2

 P ?

 - I 

A-94-52 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: 

Contact Report 

Kenneth R. Meardon, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

February 26,1997 

Mr. D. Pierce Epes 

United Technologies Motor Systems 

Telephone Number: (601) 245-4367 

Fax Number: (601) 2454489 

Contact Summary: 

In response to my question concerning their gel coating process, Mr. Epes indicated that: 

(1) the mixture of gel coat, unsaturated polyester resin, and styrene is pumped/dribbled onto the 

armature in which the windings are located and (2) the gel coat/resin mixture is allowed to cure 

around the windings, in some cases at room temperature and in some case with external heat 

Mr. Epes said that they have switched some of their production to vinyl toluene-based gel coats 

and resins, but are still using some styrene-based gel coats and resins. He also noted that they 

have reduced the number of lines in which this process occurs to 2 or 3 lines. 

Mr. Epes also indicated that this process is included in their Title V permit as a permitted 

source of VOC and that the facility is a major source, primarily due to the facility's boilers. 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE
EXHIBIT 32.1






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






The undersigned, Sherry Couturier, CFO 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, 2010.






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 17, 2010


Sherry Couturier


CFO


/s/ Sherry Couturier
Agreement Between Grand Canyon Trust and Salt River Project 

Regarding Proposed Permit AZ 08-01. Navajo Generating Station 

The Grand Canyon Trust and Salt River Project (SAP) hereby agree to the 

followtng to resolve the Trust's November 14, 2008 comments on EPA s 

proposed PSD permit for the Navajo Station. 

The Grand Canyon Trust agrees to formally with(iraw 1ts November 14 

2008 comment let1er to EPA by November 19. 2008. SAP understands that the 

Grand Canyon Trust stands by its support for the tnstatlatton of low-NOx burners 

and separated overfire air at the Navajo Generating Statton as long as their 

installation and operation will not prejudice in any way the tmplementation of 

more effective NOx and parttculate matter controls {mcluding SCA or SNCR. and 

baghouse technology) to more fully address NavaJO s vtstbtlity tmpacts under the 

reasonable attnbution and regional haze programs 

Within 30 days of the withdrawal, SAP agrees to submit an application tor 

a permit revision to EPA stipulating that during the first 24 months of operatton 

after each NavaJO untt is retrofitted with low-NOx burners and separated overftre 

atr, the target CO emission limit is 0 15 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average 

and the enforceable CO emission limtt is 0.42 lbiMMBtu on a 30-day rolling 

average for each retrofitted unit. 

SAP agrees that during the first 12 months of operation after each untt ts 

retrofitted wtth low-NOx burners and separated overfire air SAP will work to 

achieve the lowest optimum NOx and CO em1sston levels. Wtthtn 30 days of 

complet1ng the 12-month tuntng period, SAP w1ll submit a written report to EPA 

with a copy to the Grand Canyon Trust, that sets forth the CO and NOx emtssion 

data and descr·bes the abtlity of the unit to meet the 0.15 tb 'MMBtu CO target 

emission lim1t at vanous corresponding NOx emiss1on rates. 

SAP agrees that after the first 24 months of operation of each retrofit1ed 

unit. the enforceable CO permit limit shall be 0.15 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolhng 

average unless SAPs report demonstrates to the satisfaction of EPA that 

compliance with the 0.15 lb/MMBtu limit is not possible or that compliance at thts 

lim1t tS detrimental to optimization of the NOx emission rate To the extent that 

EPA agrees that compliance is not possible or is detrimental to the NOx emiss1on 

rate. SAP w1ll agree to a revised CO emission limit that reflects the lowest 

optimum CO emission level that tn no evenl shall be greater than 0 42 lbfMMBtu 

on a 30-day rolling average. The revised CO emtss1on limit shall become 

effective 30 days after EPA's action. In the event that EPA has not made a 

determinatton within the 24 month time frame noted above then the enforceable 

CO emission hmit wtll be a 30-day rolling average equal to the hmit proposed by 

- 1 -
SRP tn the wntten report thni w.1s submttted to EPl\ unt1l such ttme EP.A. makes a 

determmatton and t!lcorporates 1t tnto tho !Jerrmt 

I 

i~~~~~~-·Jht 6_v4! 

Rtchard Hayslip-· \ B tIt 

~Sill~~ c.d" n E)rerut,ve D1recto• 

Assoc1ate General Manayer GranrJ Canyon Trust 

Dated l 1

' I l -) : ( t Dated ''/ ~ aY -
EXHIBIT 32.1
   (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is
attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 Dated: May 5, 2009
    /s/ Gregory T. LucierGregory T. LucierChief Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to Life Technologies and will be retained by Life Technologies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001072546
<NAME>                        PharmaNetics, Inc.

<S>                                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                  SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                              3,589
<SECURITIES>                                                        3,243
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         805
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          (54)
<INVENTORY>                                                         1,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      225
<PP&E>                                                              6,751
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     (3,541)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     13,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                               1,220
<BONDS>                                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                                             0
<COMMON>                                                                7
<OTHER-SE>                                                         11,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       13,346
<SALES>                                                             2,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    2,882
<CGS>                                                              (2,358)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      (2,358)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   (4,545)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   (244)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    (3,961)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                (3,961)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       (808)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         0
<CHANGES>                                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       (4,769)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                         (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       (0.64)


</TABLE>