alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 450.217 Registration of space objects. ( a ) To assist the U.S. Government in implementing Article IV of the 1975 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, each licensee must submit to the FAA the information required by paragraph (b) of this section for all objects placed in space by a licensed launch, including a launch vehicle and any components, except any object owned and registered by the U.S. Government.
( b ) For each object that must be registered in accordance with this section, no later than 30 days following the conduct of a licensed launch, a licensee must file the following information: ( 1 ) The international designator of the space object;
( 2 ) Date and location of launch;
( 3 ) General function of the space object;
( 4 ) Final orbital parameters, including: ( i ) Nodal period;
( ii ) Inclination;
( iii ) Apogee;
( iv ) Perigee; and
( 5 ) Ownership, and country of ownership, of the space object.
( c ) A licensee must notify the FAA when it removes an object that it has previously placed in space.
#### FOREMAN v. THE STATE.

(Decided November 28, 1916.)

Appeal from Lee Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. Lum Duke.

No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. MARTIN, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed on motion of Attorney General.
#### § 102.104 Withdrawal of petition.

The petitioner may withdraw the petition at any time prior to issuance of the Board's advisory opinion.

[82 FR 11767, Feb. 24, 2017]
# EUR-Lex - 31998R1359 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R1359

**Council Regulation (EC) No 1359/98 of 29 June 1998 amending the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products **

*
Official Journal L 186 , 30/06/1998 P. 0001 - 0011 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1359/98 of 29 June 1998 amending the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 28 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas it is in the interest of the Community to suspend partially or totally the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for a number of new products not listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 (1);

Whereas the products referred to in the said Regulation, for which it is no longer in the Community's interest to maintain suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties or for which it is necessary to amend the description in the light of technical developments, must be withdrawn from the list in the Annex thereto;

Whereas, for the sake of clarity, products whose description requires amendment should be regarded as new products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The products set out in Annex I to this Regulation shall be added to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96. The autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on these products shall be suspended at the rate indicated for each product.

Article 2

The products for which the codes are set out in Annex II to this Regulation shall be removed from the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96.

Article 3

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

It shall apply with effect from 1 July 1998.

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

Done at Luxembourg, 29 June 1998.

For the Council

The President

R. COOK

(1) OJ L 158, 29.6.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2590/97 (OJ L 355, 30.12.1997, p. 1).

ANNEX I

>TABLE>

ANEXO II - BILAG II - ANHANG II - ÐÁÑÁÑÔÇÌÁ II - ANNEX II - ANNEXE II - ALLEGATO II - BIJLAGE II - ANEXO II - LIITE II - BILAGA II

>TABLE>
#### BUSHNELL v EDMONDSON, et.

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co.

No. 8995.

Decided Nov. 19, 1928.

Thomas H. Bushnell, Cleveland,' for Bushnell.

Edward Blythin, Cleveland, for Edmond-son.

*54VICKERY J

Now it is claimed that Edmondson never owned any of this property and that all the time from the beginning he never .owned any of the money that went into the property; that it at all times belonged to Mrs. Edmondson. She asserts, in order to avoid the doctrine of estoppel, that she did not know that the title was taken in the name of her husband as well as herself, and yet it remained there for a period of six years and during that time several loans were made in which both she and her husband were called upon to join in the mortgage. For whose benefit these loans were made does not appear, but it rather disputes her contention that she did not know that, this property was in the name of her husband. Apparently she turned the money over, if it was her money, to the husband ¡to deal with as his own and he took the title in their joint names, and it is inconceivable that she did not know anything about that for six years thereafter. In any event this conduct of hers in permitting this title to remain in the name of Edmondson misled Bushnell so that he furnished the services for which he obtained the judgment, and when he attempted to collect it, she steps up and says: “The property, by virtue of which being in the name of Edmondson, you extended the credit, all the time belonged to me.”

We think the doctrine of estoppel would apply in this case, and inasmuch as upon the sale of this property that was purchased by The Phillis Wheatley Association, the money realized from it went into the new home and a large sum of it,. $3700 was given to the daughter, it would seem as if there was some purpose in this and one can readily draw an inference as to what the purpose was.

Anyway, it is conceded in this record that Bushnell performed the service and that Wesley Edmondson is a hopeless cripple and unable to compensate him, and the record clearly shows that Bushnell at least rendered the services upon the strength of this property being in the name of Edmondson, and it must have been there during all those years with the consent or knowledge of Mrs. Edmondson, notwithstanding she testifies she knew nothing about it. It seems almost incredible that that thing could happen and inasmuch as it is nothing more than compelling the payment of an honest debt, we think that the Common Pleas Court entered a right judgment and from the same evidence we are constrained to come to the same conclusion that the Common Pleas Judge did, and there will be an entry, decree for the plaintiff, order see journal, and the order to be the same as that in the court below,

Sullivan, P J and Levine, J, concur.
Exhibit 31.1


I,  James  Meier,  CEO  and  CFO,  certify  that:

1.   I  have  reviewed  this  annual  report  on  Form 10K-SB of Meier Worldwide
     Intermedia,  Inc.;

2.   Based  on  my  knowledge,  this  annual  report does not contain any untrue
     statement  of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make  the  statements  made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this  annual  report;

3.   Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and other financial
     information  included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
     respects  the  financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.   I  am  responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures  (as  defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
     the  registrant  and  we  have:

     a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or caused such
          disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to  be  designed  under  our
          supervision,  to  ensure  that  material  information  relating to the
          registrant  is  made  known  to  us  by others within the Corporation,
          particularly  during  the  period in which this annual report is being
          prepared;

     b)   evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and  procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of  the  period  covered  by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c)   disclosed  in  this  report  any  change  in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely  to  materially  affect, the registrant's internal control over
          financial  reporting;  and

5.   I  have  disclosed,  based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
     over  financial  reporting,  to  the  registrant's  auditors  and the audit
     committee  of  registrant's  board  of directors (or persons performing the
     equivalent  function):

     a)   all  significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation  of  internal  control  over  financial  reporting which are
          reasonably  likely  to  adversely  affect  the registrant's ability to
          record,  process,  summarize  and  report  financial  information; and

     b)   any  fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees  who  have  a  significant role in the registrant's internal
          control  over  financial  reporting.


February  16,  2005     /s/    James  Meier
-------------------     -------------------
     James  Meier
     ------------
     Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chief  Financial  Officer
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 09/07 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Sep 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.11 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly report of UC Hub, Inc. on Form 10-QSB, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry Wilcox, Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



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.





/s/ Larry Wilcox

Larry Wilcox

Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)

June 14, 2008
#### L.P.S. Enterprises of New York, Ltd., Appellant, v Senpike Mall Company, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 202]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted that part of defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of those parts of the fourth and fifth causes of action that seek a refund for alleged common area cost overcharges that accrued prior to January 1,1996. In signing the lease, plaintiff expressly waived the right to audit common area charges for each year after the passage of two lease years *(see, Hadden v Consolidated Edison Co.,*45 NY2d 466, 469), and “[ajbsent some violation of law or transgression of a strong public policy,” there is no basis for *872this Court to revise the bargained-for agreement between the parties *(Rowe v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co.,*46 NY2d 62, 67-68; *see, Niagara County Sewer Dist. No. 1 v Town of Niagara,*214 AD2d 978). We agree with the court that defendant’s determination of the charges is now “final and conclusive”; the fact that plaintiff seeks to audit those charges in the context of this lawsuit is of no moment. The court did not abuse its discretion in granting that part of defendant’s cross motion seeking a protective order *(see, Moore v Gemerek,*222 AD2d 1064). We have examined the remaining contentions of plaintiff and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.
**Exhibit 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-84904, 33-98132,33-99134, 33-99140, 33-99150, 33-99154 and 333-138316) of Kyocera Corporation of our report dated June 28, 2010 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F.

/S/    Kyoto Audit Corporation 

Kyoto, Japan 

June 28, 2010
# EUR-Lex - 31998E0326 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998E0326

**98/326/CFSP: Common Position of 7 May 1998 defined by the Council on the basis of Article J.2 of the Treaty on European Union concerning the freezing of funds held abroad by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Serbian Governments **

*
Official Journal L 143 , 14/05/1998 P. 0001 - 0002 *

COMMON POSITION of 7 May 1998 defined by the Council on the basis of Article J.2 of the Treaty on European Union concerning the freezing of funds held abroad by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Serbian Governments (98/326/CFSP)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article J.2 thereof,

Whereas on 19 March 1998 the Council adopted Common Position 98/240/CFSP (1) on restrictive measures against the FRY;

Whereas further measures, and in particular the freezing of funds, were contemplated in Common Position 98/240/CFSP, should the conditions set out therein not be met and repression continue in Kosovo; whereas those conditions have not been met and therefore a further reduction of financial relations with the FRY should be foreseen;

Whereas, the restrictive measures set out in Article 1 will be reconsidered immediately if the FRY and Serbian Governments move to adopt a framework for dialogue and a stabilisation package;

Whereas the European Union will move to further restrictive measures, and specifically to take action to stop new investment in Serbia, if by 9 May 1998 dialogue between the parties is blocked because of the FRY and Serbian Government's non-compliance,

HAS DEFINED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

Funds held abroad by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbian Governments will be frozen.

Article 2

This common position shall take effect from the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This common position shall be reviewed not later than six months after its adoption.

Article 4

This common position shall be published in the Official Journal.

Done at Brussels, 7 May 1998.

For the Council

The President

M. BECKETT

(1) OJ L 95, 27.3.1998, p. 1.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-370-13

MICHAEL JOSEPH SNOWDEN, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to life

in prison. On appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the $639 in

court costs assessed against him in the judgment. The Court of Appeals agreed, relying on

its own opinion in Johnson v. State, 389 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. App. – Houston [14 Dist.] 2012).

th
SNOWDEN - 2

Snowden v. State, No. 14-12-00586-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2795 (Tex. App. – Houston

[14 Dist.] March 19, 2013) (not designated for publication).

th

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review of this decision. We recently

handed down our opinion in Johnson v. State, No. PD-0193-13, 2014 Tex. Crim. App.

LEXIS 240 (Tex. Crim. App. February 26, 2014), in which we set forth a roadmap for

resolving questionsregarding court costs. See also Cardenas v. State, No. PD-0733-13, 2014

Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236 (Tex. Crim. App. February 26, 2014).

The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in

Johnson. Accordingly, we grant the State’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the

judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals in light of

our opinion in Johnson. No motion for rehearing will be entertained.

DATE DELIVERED: April 16, 2014

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### W. Frank Wiley, Resp’t, *v.*The Village of Tarrytown, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed May 18, 1889.)*

1. Municipal ' corporations—Action fob damages.

An action against an incorporated village for injury to plaintiffs possession of land on a street, is no bar to a petition for a commission to assess damages for a change in the grade of a street, as such damages to be assessed are to land “ adjoining” the highway.

2. Same—Laws 1883, chap. 113.

A change of grade made by an incorporated village, in a street taken by it as a public highway, is within the provisions of chapter 113, Laws 1883, providing for a commission to assess damages to adjoining land owners, . when their lands or buildings are injured by a change in the grade of the street.

Appeal from an order of the special term, Westchester county, appointing commissioners to assess damages for a change in the grade of a street in the village of Tarry-town.

*J. S. Millard,*for app’lt; *L. T. Yates,*for resp’t.

Barnard, P. J.

This appeal is from an order appointing a commission, upon the petition of another land owner on John street. This petitioner only owned land on the old street, where the village had never established a grade •before the extension. On the Bartlett appeal, *ante,*p. 272, *274we held that the old street was taken as an established highway when the village was incorporated, and that a subsequent change of grade was within the act. The street was lower from one and a half to four feet. The petitioner’s right to a commission is thus established, and the •extent of the injury is for the commission. The other defense to the granting of the petition is that there is an action pending, brought by petitioner, against the village. There is no conflict between the two proceedings. The action is for an injury to the petitioner’s possession of the land on the street. The village pleaded that it was a highway in 1871, and has been ever since. In this proceeding it is admitted that John street (the old part) was an open public street when the village was incorporated, about the year, 1871, and it has been used as such until this time. The commissioners are to assess the damage to the land “adjoining such highway.” The action thus effects the injury to the land in the highway, and the other proceedings, the land adjacent.

The order, therefore, was right, and should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Pratt, J., concurs; Dykman, J., not sitting.
ASSIGNMENT
                                   ----------
                                       AND
                                       ---
                                  BILL OF SALE
                                  ------------

     This  instrument  is executed as of June 30, 2006 by Marshall Distributing,
L.L.C.,  a  Utah limited liability company and EMS Business Development, Inc., a
California  corporation  (hereinafter  collectively  "Assignor")  and  Gateway
Distributors,  Ltd.,  a  Nevada  corporation  (hereinafter  the  "Assignee"):

     For  valuable consideration Assignor hereby sells, assigns and transfers to
the  Assignee all Assignor's right, title, and interest in and to all contracts,
goodwill,  leasehold  interests, trade names and other intangible assets of that
certain  herbal  and  health  food  supplement distributing business operated by
Marshall Distributing, L.L.C., located at 3085 Directors Row, Salt Lake City, UT
84104,  specifically  including but not limited to those described in Schedule I
attached  hereto.

Dated  as  of  June  30,  2006

ASSIGNOR:                               ASSIGNEE:

Marshall  Distributing,  LLC,           Gateway  Distributors,  Ltd.
a  Utah  limited  liability  company    a  Nevada  corporation

By:                                     By:
   ---------------------------------       ---------------------------------


By:                                     By:
   ---------------------------------       ---------------------------------


EMS  Business  Development,  Inc.,
a  California  corporation

By:
   ---------------------------------


By:
   ---------------------------------


<PAGE>
                                   SCHEDULE I
#### MEURER STEEL BARREL COMPANY, INC., v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. C-1278.

Decided July 6, 1937]

*Mr. Emanuel A. Stern*for the plaintiff.

*Mr. J. F.*Mothershead, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General James W. Morris,*for the defendant. *Mr. E. R. Weisbender*was on the brief.

*562MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The court increased the allowance per barrel over the royalty of- $0.25 per barrel fixed by plaintiff, as appears in the findings. This increase we think is supported by the fact that the lesser royalty fixed by plaintiff was so fixed to avoid the expense of litigation and other factors involved in the same. The plaintiff’s patent was a narrow one and did not extend to a patented barrel. See the court’s original opinion in 74 C. Cls. 428.
§ 1919.21 Marking and posting of safe working loads. ( a ) The safe working load of the assembled gear and the minimum angle to the horizontal at which this load may be applied shall be plainly marked at the heels of all booms along with the date of the test. Where gear is certificated for use in union purchase, the union purchase safe working load shall also be plainly marked. Any limitations shall be noted in the vessel's papers.
( b ) The safe working load shall be marked on all blocks used in hoisting or lowering.
( c ) When the capacity of the boom of a crane or derrick has been or will be rated in accordance with the variance of its radius, the maximum safe working loads for the various working angles of the boom and the maximum and minimum radii at which the boom may be safely used shall be conspicuously posted near the controls and visible to the crane operator. Ratings may be stated in pounds. When they are stated in tons of 2,000 pounds, this fact shall be indicated.
Exhibit 15(a)

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers

We
  hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Rhodias Registration
  Statements on Form S-8 (Registration n° 333-12200 and 333-124813) of our
  report dated March 29, 2007 relating to Rhodias financial statements and
  management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
  reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
  that appears in Rhodias Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
  December 31, 2006.



|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|PricewaterhouseCoopers
      Neuilly-sur-Seine,
        France
      March
        29, 2007