alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31999R1468 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R1468

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1468/1999 of 5 July 1999 laying down certain detailed rules for the application measures for the Community beef and veal labelling system in 1999/2000 **

*
Official Journal L 170 , 06/07/1999 P. 0010 - 0011 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1468/1999

of 5 July 1999

laying down certain detailed rules for the application measures for the Community beef and veal labelling system in 1999/2000

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2071/98 of 28 September 1998 on publicity measures on the labelling of beef and veal(1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 890/1999 of 29 April 1999 on the organisation of publicity measures relating to the Community system for the labelling of beef and veal(2), and in particular Article 1(2) thereof,

(1) Whereas Regulation (EC) No 2071/98 makes provision for the Community to finance publicity measures intended to inform consumers of the guarantees offered by the system for the labelling of beef and veal;

(2) Whereas Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 890/1999 provides that the Commission is to draw up a list of Member States participating in the implementation of publicity measures and apportion among those Member States the funds for financing the measures; whereas, under that procedure, the funds are to be distributed taking account of beef and veal consumption and production in each Member State;

(3) Whereas application of those criteria produces the distribution laid down in this Regulation;

(4) Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Member States intending to implement publicity measures in 1999/2000 to inform consumers of the guarantees offered by the Community system for the labelling of beef and veal introduced by Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97(3) are as set out in column I of the Annex.

Article 2

The funds for financing and evaluating the publicity measures shall be distributed among th Member States referred to in Article 1 as set out in columns II and III of the Annex.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 5 July 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 265, 30.9.1998, p. 2.

(2) OJ L 113, 30.4.1999, p. 5.

(3) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 1.

ANNEX

List of Member States involved in the publicity campaign for labelling in 1999/2000

Regulation (EC) No 890/1999

>TABLE>
§ 1912.8 Committee charters. ( a ) *Filing.* No advisory committee shall take any action or conduct any business subsequent to January 5, 1973, until a committee charter has been filed with the Secretary of Labor, the standing committees of the Congress having legislative jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and the Library of Congress.
( b ) *Committee charter information.* Each Advisory committee charter shall contain the following information: ( 1 ) The committee's official designation;
( 2 ) The committee's objectives and scope of activity; i.e., the standard or standards to be developed;
( 3 ) The period of time necessary for the committee to carry out its purposes;
( 4 ) The agency to whom the advisory committee reports (i.e., the Assistant Secretary);
( 5 ) The agency responsible for providing support (i.e., the Occupational Safety and Health Administration);
( 6 ) Description of the committee's duties;
( 7 ) The estimated number and frequency of committee meetings;
( 8 ) The estimated annual operating costs in dollars and man-years;
( 9 ) The committee's termination date or other fixed period of termination, if less than 2 years (see § 1912.3(j) concerning the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health); and
( 10 ) The date the charter is filed with the Department of Labor's Committee Management Officer.
( c ) *Applicability of this section to subgroups* The applicability of this section to subgroups of an advisory committee depends upon the nature of the subgroup. With regard to formal subgroups, such as a formal subcommittee of an advisory committee, the requisite information should be set forth either in the charter of the parent committee or in a separate charter. Informal subgroups of an advisory committee, particularly those temporary in nature, need not be reflected expressly in a charter.
( d ) The Assistant Secretary shall file each charter with the Department's Committee Management Officer.
§ 67.407 Delegation of authority. ( a ) The authority of the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44703 to issue or deny medical certificates is delegated to the Federal Air Surgeon to the extent necessary to— ( 1 ) Examine applicants for and holders of medical certificates to determine whether they meet applicable medical standards; and
( 2 ) Issue, renew, and deny medical certificates, and issue, renew, deny, and withdraw Authorizations for Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate and Statements of Demonstrated Ability to a person based upon meeting or failing to meet applicable medical standards.
( b ) Subject to limitations in this chapter, the delegated functions of the Federal Air Surgeon to examine applicants for and holders of medical certificates for compliance with applicable medical standards and to issue, renew, and deny medical certificates are also delegated to aviation medical examiners and to authorized representatives of the Federal Air Surgeon within the FAA.
( c ) The authority of the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44702, to reconsider the action of an aviation medical examiner is delegated to the Federal Air Surgeon; the Manager, Aeromedical Certification Division; and each Regional Flight Surgeon. Where the person does not meet the standards of §§ 67.107(b)(3) and (c), 67.109(b), 67.113(b) and (c), 67.207(b)(3) and (c), 67.209(b), 67.213(b) and (c), 67.307(b)(3) and (c), 67.309(b), or 67.313(b) and (c), any action taken under this paragraph other than by the Federal Air Surgeon is subject to reconsideration by the Federal Air Surgeon. A certificate issued by an aviation medical examiner is considered to be affirmed as issued unless an FAA official named in this paragraph (authorized official) reverses that issuance within 60 days after the date of issuance. However, if within 60 days after the date of issuance an authorized official requests the certificate holder to submit additional medical information, an authorized official may reverse the issuance within 60 days after receipt of the requested information.
( d ) The authority of the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44709 to re-examine any civil airman to the extent necessary to determine an airman's qualification to continue to hold an airman medical certificate, is delegated to the Federal Air Surgeon and his or her authorized representatives within the FAA.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
         <LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
         EXTRACTED FROM THE RAKO CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
         FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
         IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
         STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>  1
       
<S>                           <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             0
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   0
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              0
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       1,025
<OTHER-SE>                                    93,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       0
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,574
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,574)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,574)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,574)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
Scaled RRF - SJV 4k Domain Bakersfield - California Street

NH4 NO3 SO4 OC EC OTR

Q1 0.78 0.74 0.97 0.74 0.89 0.98Q2 0.71 0.62 0.98 0.81 0.89 0.99Q3 0.68 0.61 0.98 0.83 0.89 0.99Q4 0.79 0.77 0.96 0.73 0.88 0.99Annual2011-2013 STN with Sandwich

NH4 NO3 SO4 OCMmb EC Crustal Water BlankFilter Mass 2011 

Q1 1.97 5.49 1.14 6.06 0.94 1.53 1.08 0.50 18.71 16.5 Q2 0.24 0.00 1.38 3.84 0.43 1.68 0.49 0.50 8.57 9.4 Q3 0.30 0.00 1.58 3.41 0.57 3.33 0.57 0.50 10.26 10.8 Q4 1.52 4.54 1.20 6.41 1.21 2.12 0.91 0.50 18.42 28.1 Annual 1.01 2.51 1.33 4.93 0.79 2.16 0.76 0.50 13.99 16.20 2018-2020 Controlled PM2.5

NH4 NO3 SO4 OCMmb EC Crustal Water BlankFilter Mass 2018 

Q1 1.53 4.07 1.11 4.49 0.83 1.50 0.82 0.50 14.86 13.12 Q2 0.17 0.00 1.36 3.10 0.39 1.66 0.49 0.50 7.66 8.39 Q3 0.20 0.00 1.55 2.83 0.51 3.29 0.56 0.50 9.44 9.93 Q4 1.20 3.48 1.15 4.68 1.07 2.09 0.72 0.50 14.89 22.65 Annual 0.78 1.89 1.29 3.77 0.70 2.13 0.65 0.50 11.71 13.52
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50157

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RONALD MARTIN MOORE, also known as Donald Martin Moore, also known 

as Ronald Moore, also known as Donald M. Moore, also known as Ronald E. 

Moore,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-734-1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Ronald Martin Moore raises 

an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 

240, 241-43 (5th Cir. 1996), which rejected a Commerce Clause-based 

challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Government’s motion for summary

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50157 Document: 00513307605 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
No. 15-50157

2

affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file 

a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50157 Document: 00513307605 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
# L_2005185EN.01003702.xml

| 16.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 185/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/37

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 562/2000 of 15 March 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 as regards the buying-in of beef

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 68 of 16 March 2000
  )

On page 43, Annex VII, point II. 3:

for:

‘The location of pallets and cages must be shown on a storage plant.’,

read:

‘The location of pallets and cages must be shown on a storage plan.’

---
#### Lisa A. Santangelo et al., as Coadministratrices of the Estate of Guido E. Mitravich, Deceased, Appellants-Respondents, v Fluor Constructors International, Inc., et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs, and APi, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendant. Frank Lill & Son, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[697 NYS2d 881]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of plaintiffs for partial summary judgment on liability against defendant American Ref-Fuel Company of Niagara on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and the cross motion of third-party defendant, Frank Lili & Son, Inc. (Lill), for summary judgment dismissing *894the complaint. Plaintiffs’ decedent fell from a height of approximately 53 feet at a construction site when struck by the basket of a manlift being operated by a co-worker. There is an issue of fact whether decedent was properly using his safety harness and lanyard at the time of the accident and thus whether he was a recalcitrant worker because he allegedly refused to tie off *(see, Kulp v Gannett Co.*[appeal No. 1], 259 AD2d 969).

The court erred, however, in denying the cross motion of defendant APi, Inc. (APi) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. A subcontractor is not liable for a dangerous condition that arises from another contractor’s methods unless it exercised control and supervision over those methods *(see, Murray v South End Improvement Corp.,*263 AD2d 577; *Gielow v Coplon Home,*251 AD2d 970, *lv dismissed in part and denied in part*92 NY2d 1042, *rearg denied*93 NY2d 889). In addition, a subcontractor may be liable for common-law negligence in supplying defective equipment that is used by employees of another contractor *(see, Schiulaz v Arnell Constr. Corp.,*261 AD2d 247; *Kanney v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,*245 AD2d 1034, 1036). APi met its initial burden by establishing that it did not control or supervise the manner in which decedent performed his work and that the manlift was not defective, and plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact.

We reject plaintiffs’ contention that APi’s cross motion was premature because plaintiffs had not completed discovery *(see,*CPLR 3212 [fl). Plaintiffs failed to establish that facts essential to justify opposition to the cross motion were within the exclusive knowledge of APi or another party *(see, Wittkopp v ADF Constr. Corp.,*254 AD2d 775) or that they could not have completed discovery during the two years since commencement of the action *(see, Adams v Glass Fab,*212 AD2d 972, 974). Thus, we modify the order by granting the cross motion of APi and dismissing the complaint against it. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Scudder, Callahan and Balio, JJ.
§ 13.56 Petition for review. ( a ) *Filing.* Within 30 calendar days after the date of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (or such additional time as is granted by the Administrative Review Board), any party aggrieved thereby who desires review thereof shall file a petition for review of the decision with supporting reasons. Such party shall transmit the petition in writing to the Administrative Review Board with a copy thereof to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. The petition shall refer to the specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, or order at issue. A petition concerning the decision on debarment shall also state the disregard of obligations to employees and/or subcontractors, or lack thereof, as appropriate. A party must serve the petition for review, and all briefs, on all parties and the Chief Administrative Law Judge. It must also timely serve copies of the petition and all briefs on the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, and on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.
( b ) *Effect of filing.* If a party files a timely petition for review, the Administrative Law Judge's decision shall be inoperative unless and until the Administrative Review Board issues an order affirming the decision, or the decision otherwise becomes a final order of the Secretary. If a petition for review concerns only the imposition of debarment, however, the remainder of the decision shall be effective immediately. No judicial review shall be available unless a timely petition for review to the Administrative Review Board is first filed.
#### W. HORACE WILLIAMS CO., INC., A CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 42934.

Decided June 1, 1937]

*Mr. George E. Elliott*for the plaintiff. *Mr. D. Heywood Hardy*was on the briefs.

*Mr. C. Keefe Hurley,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Sard E. Whitaker,*for the defendant. *Mr. William, W. Seott*was on the brief.

*440Whaley, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant on October 31, 1932, whereby it agreed to construct a composite jetty at the entrance to Intracoastal Waterway, Pensacola Bay, Florida. Under the notice plaintiff received, the date of the commencement of the work was fixed as of December 24,1932, and the work was to be completed within 100 calendar days from the date of the notice to proceed, *441which fixed the completion date on March 10, 1983. During the progress of the work the defendant, according to the provisions of the contract, directed plaintiff to perform additional work and allowed an extension of time for this additional work of 19 days. With these additional days, the completion date was extended to March 29, 1933. The contract provided for liquidated damages of $30.00 per day for every day the work was not completed after the completion date. During the performance of the contract unusual weather conditions were encountered and the plaintiff made a claim for an extension of time due to these unusual weather conditions for a period of 93 days, being the period from the completion date of March 29, 1933, to June 30, 1933, when the work was completed and accepted. Under Article 9 of the contract which deals with delays and damages, it is “Provided further, that the contractor shall within ten days from the beginning of any such delay notify the contracting officer in writing of the causes of delay, who shall ascertain the facts and the extent of the delay, and his findings of facts thereon shall be final and conclusive on the parties hereto, subject only to appeal, within thirty days, by the contractor to the head of the department concerned, whose decision on such appeal as to the facts of delay shall be final and conclusive on the parties thereto.” The plaintiff duly made claim for the delays caused by the unusual weather conditions and the contracting officer duly considered the claim and remitted 15 days liquidated damages of the 93 days liquidated damages which had been imposed. No appeal from this decision of the contracting-officer was ever taken to the head of the department according to the terms of the contract and therefore the decision of the contracting officer became final and conclusive as to the facts of the delay. The parties are bound by the terms of the contract. This has been decided so often that it is unnecessary to cite authorities. The accounting office has reimbursed the plaintiff for the 15 days allowed by the contracting officer.

The petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Williams, *Judge;*LittletoN, *Judge;*GreeN, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur.
#### Gael Laincy et al., Respondents, v Tsuo Chienchun et al., Appellants.

[697 NYS2d 533]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated November 16, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff *356had sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affidavit of the injured plaintiffs examining physician submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment did not provide any information concerning the objective tests he performed in arriving at his conclusions concerning an alleged restriction in the injured plaintiffs range of motion *(see, Kauderer v Penta,*261 AD2d 365; *Lobo v Singh,*259 AD2d 523; *DiNunzio v County of Suffolk,*256 AD2d 498; *Russell v City of Mount Vernon,*256 AD2d 454). S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATIONS

I, John W. Stump III certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of American
International Industries, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of 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.

Date: November 13, 2002

/s/ John W. Stump III
John W. Stump III, Chief Financial Officer and Director
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 835 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 835

To redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in 
 Memphis, Tennessee, as the ``Clifford Davis and Odell Horton Federal 
                              Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2007

  Mr. Alexander (for himself and Mr. Corker) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in 
 Memphis, Tennessee, as the ``Clifford Davis and Odell Horton Federal 
                              Building''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, 
Tennessee, commonly known as the Clifford Davis Federal Building, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Clifford Davis and Odell Horton 
Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Clifford Davis and 
Odell Horton Federal Building''.
                                 <all>
```