alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31998R0954 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R0954

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/98 of 6 May 1998 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2301/97 on the entry of certain names in the 'Register of certificates of specific character" provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 133 , 07/05/1998 P. 0010 - 0011 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 954/98 of 6 May 1998 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2301/97 on the entry of certain names in the 'Register of certificates of specific character` provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs (Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 of 14 July 1992 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,

Whereas, in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92, the Member States have sent the Commission applications for the registration of certain names as certificates of special character;

Whereas registered names can be used with the endorsement 'traditional speciality guaranteed` which is reserved for them;

Whereas an objection was sent to the Commission in accordance with Article 7 of that Regulation following the publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2) of the names in the Annex hereto but was subsequently withdrawn;

Whereas those names may accordingly be entered in the 'Register of certificates of specific character` and therefore be protected throughout the Community as guaranteed traditional specialities;

Whereas the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2301/97 (3) is to be supplemented by the Annex hereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The names in the Annex hereto are hereby added to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2301/97 and entered in the 'Register of certificates of specific character` in accordance with Article 9(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of 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, 6 May 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 208, 24. 7. 1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 21, 21. 1. 1997, pp. 5-16.

(3) OJ L 319, 21. 11. 1997, p. 8.

ANNEX

- 'Kriek`, 'Kriek-Lambic`, 'Framboise-Lambic`, 'Fruit-Lambic`/'Kriek`, 'Kriekenlambiek`, 'Frambozenlambiek`, 'Vruchtenlambiek` (Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92) (1),

- 'Lambic`, 'Gueuze-Lambic`,/'Geuze`/'Lambiek`, 'Geuze-Lambiek`, 'Geuze` (Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92) (2).

(1) The main points of the specifications are to be found in OJ C 21, 21. 1. 1997, pp. 5-16.
§ 1471.515 What specific information is in the EPLS? ( a ) At a minimum, the *EPLS* indicates— ( 1 ) The full name (where available) and address of each excluded or disqualified person, in alphabetical order, with cross references if more than one name is involved in a single action;
( 2 ) The type of action;
( 3 ) The cause for the action;
( 4 ) The scope of the action;
( 5 ) Any termination date for the action;
( 6 ) The agency and name and telephone number of the agency point of contact for the action; and
( 7 ) The Dun and Bradstreet Number (DUNS), or other similar code approved by the GSA, of the excluded or disqualified person, if available.
( b ) ( 1 ) The database for the *EPLS* includes a field for the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) (the social security number (SSN) for an individual) of an excluded or disqualified person.
( 2 ) Agencies disclose the SSN of an individual to verify the identity of an individual, only if permitted under the Privacy Act of 1974 and, if appropriate, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, as codified in 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
#### GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO v THAYER

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1515.

Decided Jan 11, 1929

Dustin, McKeehan, MSerrick, Arter & Stewart, Cleveland, for Goodyear.

Motz & .Morris, Cuyahoga Falls, for Thayer.

WASHBURN, PJ.

We have carefully read and considered the evidence, as shown by the bill of exceptions, and we find that there was a conflict in the evidence as to how long the defendant in error was at the scene of the accident before he was injured; as to the extent to which the scene of the accident was lighted by the standing cars in the vicinity at the time; as to the extent the plaintiff in error’s car blocked the north-bound right of way at the time defendant in error was injured; as to what efforts, if any, the plaintiff in error made to move its car out of the path of northbound traffic; and there was also a conflict in the evidence as to what was done by the plaintiff in error to warn Kennedy and others using the highway, of the condition there existent.

As to some of these matters, and others, the evidence is so conflicting as to render uncertain what the real facts are, and these matters have a direct bearing upon both of the propositions'relied upon by the plaintiff in error.

It cannot be said that a verdict for a defendant is required as a matter of law where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence as to any material fact, upon which such a verdict depends; and it is settled in Ohio that the questions of negligence, proximate cause and contributory negligence, do not become questions of law for the court where there is a conflict in th° evidence as to the controlling facts.

Painesville Utopia Theater Co. v. Lautermilch, 118 O.S. 167.

We are of the opinion that the record in the case at bar presents such a conflict in the evidence in reference to material questions of fact as to preclude us from determining that the defendant in error was guilty of negligence as a matter of law or that as a matter of law the plaintiff in error was not guilty of any negligence which proximately caused the injuries.

But if it were established that the cir*156cumstances under which defendant in érror acted were such as plaintiff in error claims, we would be unable to find that the evidence clearly and unmistakably establishes negligence on the part of the defendant in error. We think that whether or not one in his circumstances should have anticipated that the thing which did happen, or some similar thing, was likelv to happen, is a matter concerning which different minds might reasonably arrive at different conclusions.

These are the only questions we were .asked to pass upon in this case, but there is presented by the record the further question of whether or not the findings of the jury on these questions are manifestly against the weight of the evidence; and as to that question, we have reached the conclusion that the findings of the jury are not manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

Funk, J, and Pardee, J, concur.
#### § 1404.7 Listing fee.

All arbitrators will be required to pay an annual fee for listing on the Roster, as set forth in the appendix to this part.
#### Norris *v.*The State.

Crime.

(Decided February 6, 1917.

74 South. 394.)

1. Criminal Law; Sentence. — The question of a proper punishment after conviction, within statutory limitation, is a matter for the court.

2. New Trial; Ground; Affidavit. — The affidavit of a juror is not admissible to impeach the verdict on a motion for new trial.

Appeal from Lowndes Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. A. E. Gamble.

Charlie Norris was convicted of crime and he appeals.

Affirmed.

ft. Alston Jones, and It. L. Goldsmith, for appellant.

W- L. Martin, Attorney General, and P. W. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

PELHAM, P. J.

(1, 2) The motion to set aside the verdict and grant the defendant a new trial was properly overruled by the trial court. No evidence was offered in substantiation of any ground set out except by the affidavit of a juryman undertaking to impeach the verdict as having been rendered on an understanding between the members of the jury as to the punishment that would be imposed that was not carried out. The question of the proper punishment within the statutory limitations was a matter for the court. The court was right in not considering the affidavit seeking to impeach the verdict. An affidavit of a juror is not admissible in this state, under the rulings of the Supreme Court, for the purpose of impeaching the verdict on motion for a new *trial.*— Birmingham *R., L. & P. Co. v. Moore,*148 Ala. 115, 42 South. 1024, and cases collected and cited on page 130; *Continental Casualty Co. v. Ogburn,*186 Ala. 398, 403, 64 South. 619.

The rulings of the trial court on the evidence are free from error that would authorize a reversal, and do not, we think, require discussion to demonstrate their freedom from reversible error.

*568An examination of the entire record does not disclose prejudicial error in the rulings of the court below, and an affirmance of the judgment of conviction is ordered.

Affirmed.

Bricken, J., not sitting.
§ 1601.92 Contents of request; where to file. A request for an “opinion letter” shall be in writing, signed by the person making the request, addressed to the Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507 and shall contain: ( a ) The names and addresses of the person making the request and of other interested persons.
( b ) A statement of all known relevant facts.
( c ) A statement of reasons why the title VII interpretation or opinion should be issued.
[42 FR 55388, Oct. 14, 1977. Redesignated and amended at 56 FR 9625, Mar. 7, 1991; 74 FR 3430, Jan. 21, 2009; 85 FR 65219, Oct. 15, 2020]
§ 91.1501 Purpose and definition. ( a ) This subpart requires operators to support the continued airworthiness of each airplane. These requirements may include, but are not limited to, revising the inspection program, incorporating design changes, and incorporating revisions to Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
( b ) [Reserved]
[Amdt. 91-297, 72 FR 63410, Nov. 8, 2007, as amended by Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 91-350, 83 FR 9171, Mar. 5, 2018]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4786 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey to, and take into trust 

for the benefit of, the Burns Paiute Tribe certain land in the State 

of Oregon. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 1, 2020 

Mr. WYDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey to, and 

take into trust for the benefit of, the Burns Paiute 

Tribe certain land in the State of Oregon. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE TO BURNS PAIUTE TRIBE. 

4 (a) CONVEYANCE AND TAKING INTO TRUST.—As 

5 soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, 

6 the Secretary of the Interior shall— 

7 (1) transfer to the Burns Paiute Tribe all right, 

8 title, and interest in and to the land in the State of 

9 Oregon described in subsection (b); and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4786 IS

1 (2) take that land into trust for the benefit of 

2 the Burns Paiute Tribe. 

3 (b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land referred to in 

4 subsection (a)(1) is the following, as depicted on the map 

5 entitled ‘‘Malheur Reservation Paiute Indian Tribe Grant, 

6 Malheur, and Harney Counties, Oregon’’ and dated March 

7 15, 1958: 

8 (1) JONESBORO RANCH.—The parcel commonly 

9 known as ‘‘Jonesboro Ranch’’, located approximately 

10 6 miles east of Juntura, Oregon, consisting of 

11 21,548 acres of Federal land, 208 acres of land of 

12 the State of Oregon, and 4,552 acres of private 

13 land, containing the pastures referred to as ‘‘Saddle 

14 Horse’’, ‘‘Trail Horse’’, ‘‘Indian Creek’’, ‘‘Sperry 

15 Creek’’, ‘‘Antelope Swale’’, ‘‘Horse Camp’’, ‘‘Dinner 

16 Creek’’, and ‘‘Tim’s Peak’’, and more particularly 

17 described as follows: 

18 (A) T. 21 S., R. 39 E. 

19 (B) T. 21 S., R. 40 E. 

20 (C) T. 22 S., R. 39 E. 

21 (D) T. 21 S., R. 40 E. 

22 (2) CASTLE ROCK WILDERNESS STUDY AREA.— 

23 The parcel commonly known as the ‘‘Castle Rock 

24 Wilderness Study Area’’ and more particularly de25 scribed as follows: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4786 IS

1 (A) T. 18 S., R. 37 E., secs. 5, 8, 9, 16, 

2 and 17. 

(B) T. 18. S., R. 37 E., the W1⁄2 and S1 3 ⁄2

4 of sec. 4 (except for any portion of private 

5 land). 

(C) T. 18 S., R. 37 E., the W1 6 ⁄2 of sec. 15. 

7 (D) T. 18 S., R. 37 E., sec. 10. 

(E) The SW1⁄4 of the SW1 8 ⁄4 of sec. 10. 

(F) The NW1⁄4 of the SW1 9 ⁄4 of sec. 10. 

(G) The SW1⁄4 of the NW 1 10 ⁄4 of sec. 10. 

(H) The NW1⁄4 of the NW1⁄4 of the NW1 11 ⁄4

12 of sec. 10. 

(I) The SW1⁄4 of the NW1⁄4 of the NW1 13 ⁄4

14 of sec. 10. 

(J) The NW1⁄4 of the SW1⁄4 of the NW1 15 ⁄4

16 of sec. 10. 

(K) The SW1⁄4 of the SW1⁄4 of the NW1 17 ⁄4

18 of sec. 10. 

19 (L) T. 18 S., R. 37 E., sec. 3. 

(M) The SW1⁄4 of the SW1⁄4 of the SW1 20 ⁄4

21 of sec. 3. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### § 1625.2 Discrimination prohibited by the Act.

It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual in any aspect of employment because that individual is 40 years old or older, unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. Favoring an older individual over a younger individual because of age is not unlawful discrimination under the ADEA, even if the younger individual is at least 40 years old. However, the ADEA does not require employers to prefer older individuals and does not affect applicable state, municipal, or local laws that prohibit such preferences.

[72 FR 36875, July 6, 2007]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001072914
<NAME>                        FIN SPORTS U.S.A., INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         735
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               735
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,100
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,083
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,448)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   735
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (549)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (549)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)




</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00427

- CV

Chris Noel CARLIN

, Appellant

v.

BEXAR COUNTY , Bexar County Judge Nelson W. Wolff, in his Official Capacity as Bexar

County Judge, Judge Ron Rangel in his Official Capacity as Local Criminal Court

Administrative Judge, Bexar County, Texas, and Judge Rosie Alvarado, in her Official Capacity

as Local A dministrative Judge, Bexar County, Texas,

Appellees

From the 45th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CI10840

Honorable Tina Torres , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial

court is AFFIRMED. Costs of appeal are assessed against appellant Chris Noel Carlin.

SIGNED December 20, 2023.

_____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice
§ 15.2 What definitions apply to this part? ( a ) *Department* means the Department of Labor.
( b ) *Organizational unit* means the jurisdictional area of each Assistant Secretary and each office head within the Department reporting directly to the Secretary.
( c ) *Counsel for Claims and Compensation* means the Department's deciding official in the Office of the Solicitor for certain administrative claims under this part. The address for the Counsel for Claims and Compensation is U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite S4325, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone and fax numbers for this official may be found on the Department's Web site at *www.dol.gov .*
( d ) *Regional Solicitor* means the head of the appropriate Regional Office (Regional Solicitor) or Branch Office (Associate Regional Solicitor) of the Office of Solicitor with jurisdiction to handle certain claims under this part.
( e ) *FTCA* means the Federal Tort Claims Act, as amended, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 28 U.S.C. 2671, *et seq.*
( f ) *MPCECA* means the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act of 1964, 31 U.S.C. 3721.
( g ) *WIA* means the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, 29 U.S.C. 2897(b).
Cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum), which

rarely exceeds 6 ft and has a flat flower cluster

1 ft wide and palmately lobed leaves. Hairs on

the underside of its leaf are soft, wavy, shiny,

and about 1 mm long.

Angelica (Angelica atropurpurea), which has

a smooth, purple stem, rarely exceeds 8 ft tall,

and has round, white flowers.

Clear, watery sap in the leaves and stems

contain glucoside phototoxins. These cause

hypersensitivity to sunlight, resulting in

blisters to skin after contact followed by

exposure to sunlight.

Height: 8–15 ft when flowering.

Leaves: Large, compound, deeply incised,

and 3–5 ft wide. Hairs on the underside are

stiff, dense, and stubby but only about

0.25 mm long. Petioles have short, coarse

white hairs at the base. Flower head:

Flat topped and up to 2.5 ft across.

• Ravines, roadside ditches, and riparian

 areas

• Residential properties and vacant lots

• Wooded or open-space areas between

 residential communities

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Direct contact with hogweed’s leaves or stems

can blister the skin. Glucoside phototoxins in

the plant’s clear, watery sap react with sunlight

to cause the painful blisters.

GIANT HOGWEED

The preferred method of control is integrated pest

management (IPM). Site-specific control methods need

to match local situations. Denial of seed production,

with appropriate

site rehabilitation,

for 4 to 5 years

usually eradicates

limited local

populations.

Habitat Morphology

Commonly Mistaken for...

Public Health Hazard

U.S. Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Program Aid No. 1744 June 2003, April 2012

Photo credits: USDA Forest Service employee David Powell took the shot of cow parsnip.

The remaining images were taken by APHIS photographers from North Carolina. All photos are

uncopyrighted and available for download from www.forestryimages.org.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Control Methods

Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum)

A Federal Noxious Weed
Take notice that on January 6, 2000, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets proposed to be effective January 29, 2000:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 292

Second Revised Sheet No. 299A

Northern states that the purpose of this filing is to correct the superseding tariff sheet reference. No changes have been made to Northern's tariff provisions.

Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.

Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http:///www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-1185 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

KENNETH SAXTON, REAL PARTY IN 

INTEREST AND IN BEHALF OF ENS 

LEGIS: KENNETH SAXTON, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

JUDGES OF THE COURT OF COMMON 

PLEAS, PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PA, 

ASSIGNED TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS RE OCTOBER TERM 

1980, NOS. 761, 764 & 765, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 132 EM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 21st day of October, 2014, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or 

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.