alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0659 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0659

**96/659/EC: Commission Decision of 22 November 1996 on protective measures in relation to Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever in South Africa (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 302 , 26/11/1996 P. 0027 - 0027 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 22 November 1996 on protective measures in relation to Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever in South Africa (Text with EEA relevance) (96/659/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (1), as last amended by Directive 96/43/EC (2), and in particular Article 18 (1) thereof,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/675/EEC of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (3), as last amended by Directive 96/43/EC and in particular Article 19 (1) thereof,

Whereas the presence of Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever has been confirmed in South Africa;

Whereas the appearance of Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever in South Africa constitutes a serious threat to animal and public health in the Member States;

Whereas it is therefore necessary to prohibit the importation of live ratites, and meat of ratites from South Africa until the situation is clarified;

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 Member States shall prohibit the importation of live ratites and ratite meat from South Africa.

Article 2

Member States shall amend the measures they apply in respect of South Africa to bring them into line with this Decision. They shall inform the Commission thereof.

Article 3

This Decision shall be reviewed before 15 February 1997.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 November 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 56.

(2) OJ No L 162, 1. 7. 1996, p. 1.

(3) OJ No L 373, 31. 12. 1990, p. 1.
#### MALINCHAK v STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellate Case No. 85-12413 (County Court Case No. 17491AK)

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County

November 5, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Pete Esposito for appellant.

James M. Barton II, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MANUEL MENENDEZ, JR., Circuit Judge.

The Defendant-Appellant, Donald Malinchak (hereafter the defendant) was charged with driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverages (DUI). On May 22, 1984 the Defendant, unrepresented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the charge and was sentenced. *130Thereafter he was charged with another DUI, retained counsel and sought to vacate the judgment and sentence in the instant case. The defendant argued that the trial court, in accepting his plea of guilty, failed to make the necessary inquiry as to whether the plea was being made knowingly and voluntarily. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to vacate judgment and sentence. It is from the denial of this motion that defendant now appeals.

The burden was on the defendant to establish that his previous guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made. *Allen v. State,*463 So.2d 351, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The mere fact that he was unrepresented by counsel does not meet that burden herein. The record below reflects that on two separate occasions, January 3, 1984 and May 22, 1985, the Defendant signed a waiver of rights form, indicating that he was, under oath, waiving all of his rights enumerated in Rule 3.172, Fla. R. Crim. Proc., see *Williams v. State,*316 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1975). The defendant failed to meet his burden. The trial court properly denied Defendant’s motion to vacate judgment and sentence. Accordingly, the decision of the County Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

DECIDED at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida this 5th day of November, 1987.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                 

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 8, 2000. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (JoAnne F. Lewellen, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291: 

*1. JDOB, Inc.,*                     Sandstone, Minnesota; to acquire at least 80 percent of the voting shares of First National Bank of Hinckley, Hinckley, Minnesota, a                     *de novo*                     bank.                 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 9, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-12062 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
SJGS - SCR cost estimate
	Norem, Nancy 
	to:
	Joe Kordzi
	10/21/2010 04:15 PM
	Cc:
	"Gannon, Maureen", "McGuffey, Mack", "Fischer, Diane M.", "Lucas, Kyle 
J.", "Chang, Daniel"
	Show Details



History:	This message has been forwarded.




Joe, 
Attached [AI E-22 101021.pdf] is a document that responds to the questions raised in our 
conference call on October 14, 2010. 
Nancy Norem 


<<AI E-22 101021.pdf>>
#### § 102.52 Compliance with Board order; notification of compliance determination.

After entry of a Board order directing remedial action, or the entry of a court judgment enforcing such order, the Regional Director will seek compliance from all persons having obligations under the order. As appropriate, the Regional Director will make a compliance determination and notify the parties of that determination. A Charging Party adversely affected by a monetary, make-whole, reinstatement, or other compliance determination will be provided, on request, with a written statement of the basis for that determination.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1904

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 20548, May 3, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-21, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration removed all amendments to part 1904 published at 81 FR 91792, Dec. 19, 2016.

#### §§ 1904.13-1904.28 [Reserved]
#### Jackson *v.*The State.

Murder.

(Decided January 9, 1917.

73 South. 756.)

Appeal and Error; Review; Instructions. — In the absence of a bill of exceptions, a court cannot intelligently review charges given or refused, and hence will not review the refused charged, although they are set out in the record.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. Wm.“ E. Fort.

Joe Jackson was convicted of manslaughter and he appeals.

Affirmed.

No counsel marked for appellant.

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

PELHAM, P. J.

The appeal in this case is from a judgment of conviction of manslaughter and sentence to seven years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary in accordance with the verdict of the jury. The transcript contains no bill of exceptions, and the proceedings shown by the record proper are regular and show no error. The refused charges set out cannot be intelligently reviewed in the absence of a bill of exceptions, as they are predicated upon evidence that is not before us.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1237]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Materials Research; Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meetings:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panels in Materials Research (1203).
    Dates/Time: 14 February, 18 February, 21-22 February 25 February 
2000; 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
    Place: National Science Foundation; 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, 
Va; Room 1060.
    Type of Meetings: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Liselotte J. Schioler, Program Director, 
Ceramics Program, Division of Materials Research, Room 1065, 
National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone (703) 
306-1836.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meetings: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: Review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection 
process to determine finalists considered for Ceramic Program 
awards.
    Reason for Closing: The activity being reviewed includes 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the activity. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552 b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: January 13, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-1237 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### DONNOVAN v. THE STATE.

(Decided January 9, 1917.)

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County.

Heard before Hon. M. H. Screws.

No counsel marked for appellant.

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

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for failure to file transcript.
#### FIDELITY MORTGAGE CO v MAHON et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9223.

Decided Feb 11, 1929

Krueger & Pelton, Cleveland, for Mortgage Co.

Albert Mendelson, Cleveland, for Ma-hon et.

MAUCK, J.

It is now claimed by the second mortgagee that the language quoted gave to him a specific lien upon the rents and profits arising from the mortgaged property, and by virtue thereof he is entitled to the same as against the general lien of the first mortgagee.

After a condition is broken the mortgagor is entitled to rents and profits so long, as he retains possession. A mortgagee, however, after bringing an action in foreclosure and by making to the court such showing as is required by section 11894, General Code, has a right to have a receiver appointed for the property, and this receiver by virtue of his possession is entitled to the rents and profits that may issue from such possession to be received and held by him for the benefit of the parties in interest.

In the instant case, as we pointed out, the receiver was appointed upon the motion of the second, mortgagee, but this fact did not change the substantive rights of the parties and the receiver was appointed for the benefit of all the parties. Williams vs. Gerlach, 41 OS. 682.

The section referred to is not confined in its operation to mortgages in which the rents have been specifically pledged, but is a right conferred upon all mortgagees. Since, therefore, the Fidelity Mortgage Company would have unquestioned right to the funds in question as against the mortgagor, it follows that the mortgagor, by his second mortgage, did not take away any of the rights of the Fidelity Company and grant them to the second mortgagee. This conclusion is supported by Wiltsie on Foreclosure of Mortgages at page 754.

This case has reached this court both by appeal and by a proceeding in error. It has been heard upon appeal. In the appeal case an entry will be made in favor of The Fidelity Mortgage Company and the cause will be remanded to the Common Pleas for execution. The proceeding in error will be dismissed.

Middleton, PJ, concurs.
#### Catherine Walker *vs.*The Connecticut Company.

Third Judicial District, Bridgeport,

April Term, 1917.

Prentice, C. J., Roraback, Wheeler, Beach and Shumway, Js.

While it is not necessarily negligent, as matter of law, for the conductor of a street railway company to permit ordinary hand-luggage to remain in the cross-aisles of an open trolley-car, yet an aggravated condition of overcrowding by passengers and luggage in a particular aisle, complaint of which had been made to the conductor without any attention from him, may justify a finding of negligence • against the company, if. a passenger in that aisle, in attempting to get out of the way of o.ther passengers about to alight, is jostled about, stumbles, and falls over the luggage and out of the car.

Argued April 12th—

decided June 1st, 1917.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in New Haven County, *Case, J.;*facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $1,200, and appeal by the defendant.

*No error.*

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

*Francis P. Guilfoile,*with whom was *Frank P. McEvoy,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*607Per Curiam.

This appeal questions only the sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment.

We do not hold that it is necessarily negligent for the defendant to permit ordinary hand-luggage to remain in the cross-aislés of an open trolley-car. The findings in this case show that the conductor was charged with special knowledge of a very aggravated condition of overcrowding by passengers and luggage in the particular cross-aisle in which the plaintiff sat, and that he paid no attention to her complaint about the suit case which prevented her feet from resting on the floor, and over which she afterward stumbled and fell. Because of this overcrowded condition of the cross-aisle the plaintiff was unable to let other passengers pass by who desired to alight, and in attempting to get out of their way was jostled and fell over the suit case out of the car.

The conductor ought, in the exercise of the high degree of care required of common carriers of passengers, to have known that the aggravated overcrowding of this cross-aisle created a condition dangerous to passengers who would have to use it in getting off the car, and to other passengers who by reason of such overcrowding might have to move out on to the running board to get out of their way. The negligence alleged was the overcrowding of the aisle by hand-luggage and passengers, and the jostling to which the plaintiff was subjected was a natural incident of the overcrowding.

There is no error.
AFS-14-284-E January 5, 2015

Exemption No. 11139 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0310

Mr. Thomas J. Quehl Vice President, Operations Western Global Airlines, Inc.

5566 Broadcast Court Sarasota, FL 34620

Dear Mr. Quehl:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letters dated May 8, August 5, and August 19, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Western Gl obal Airlines, LLC (Western Global) for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Western Global to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee (APD) for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Western Global.

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10430 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to the rule because of the petitioner’s limited experience as a part 121 carrier and because of the agency’s need to monitor and validate the training program. Further, the petitioner had not received final approval for its training program.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10430;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10430 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, the petition of Western Global Airlines, Inc. is denied an exemption from 14 CFR 121.434(c)(1)(ii).

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
§ 1603.208 Motions. ( a ) All motions shall state the specific relief requested. All motions shall be in writing, except that a motion may be made orally during a conference or during the hearing. After providing an opportunity for response, the administrative law judge may rule on an oral motion immediately or may require that it be submitted in writing.
( b ) Unless otherwise directed by the administrative law judge, any other party may file a response in support of or in opposition to any written motion within 10 business days after service of the motion. If no response is filed within the response period, the party failing to respond shall be deemed to have waived any objection to the granting of the motion. The moving party shall have no right to reply to a response, unless the administrative law judge exercises discretion to order that a reply be filed.
( c ) Except for procedural matters, the administrative law judge may not grant a written motion prior to the expiration of the time for filing responses. The administrative law judge may deny a written motion without awaiting a response. The administrative law judge may allow oral argument (including that made by telephone or other digital means) on written motions. Any party adversely affected by the *ex parte* grant of a motion for a procedural order may request, within 5 business days of service of the order, that the administrative law judge reconsider, vacate, or modify the order.
( d ) The administrative law judge may summarily deny motions that are repetitive, frivolous, or intended to delay the proceedings. Unless otherwise ordered by the administrative law judge, the filing of a motion does not stay the proceeding.
( e ) All motions and responses must comply with the filing and service requirements of § 1603.209.
[62 FR 17543, Apr. 10, 1997, as amended at 89 FR 47853, June 4, 2024]
§ 1614.303 Petitions to the EEOC from MSPB decisions on mixed case appeals and complaints. ( a ) *Who may file.* Individuals who have received a final decision from the MSPB on a mixed case appeal or on the appeal of a final decision on a mixed case complaint under 5 CFR part 1201, subpart E and 5 U.S.C. 7702 may petition EEOC to consider that decision. The EEOC will not accept appeals from MSPB dismissals without prejudice.
( b ) *Method of filing.* Filing shall be made by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013.
( c ) *Time to file.* A petition must be filed with the Commission either within 30 days of receipt of the final decision of the MSPB or within 30 days of when the decision of a MSPB field office becomes final.
( d ) *Service.* The petition for review must be served upon all individuals and parties on the MSPB's service list by certified mail on or before the filing with the Commission, and the Clerk of the Board, MSPB, 1615 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419, and the petitioner must certify as to the date and method of service.
[74 FR 3430, Jan. 21, 2009, as amended at 77 FR 51470, Aug. 24, 2012]