alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31998R2089 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R2089

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2089/98 of 30 September 1998 derogating from Regulation (EC) No 708/98 on the taking over of paddy rice by the intervention agencies and fixing the corrective amounts and the price increases and reductions to be applied for the 1997/98 marketing year **

*
Official Journal L 266 , 01/10/1998 P. 0026 - 0026 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2089/98 of 30 September 1998 derogating from Regulation (EC) No 708/98 on the taking over of paddy rice by the intervention agencies and fixing the corrective amounts and the price increases and reductions to be applied for the 1997/98 marketing year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 192/98 (2), and in particular Article 8(b) thereof,

Whereas the conditions for the taking over of paddy rice by the intervention agencies are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 708/98 (3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1307/98 (4); whereas Article 6(1) of that Regulation provides that delivery must be effected no later than 31 August of the current marketing year;

Whereas during the 1997/98 marketing year the intervention agencies encountered difficulties in setting up a good system for the storage, checking and reception of goods; whereas these difficulties delayed the acceptance of offers made and the taking over of deliveries; whereas, for the 1997/98 marketing year, these difficulties justify a derogation from the time limit set in the abovementioned provisions for delivery to the intervention agency;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Notwithstanding Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 708/98, delivery of paddy rice for taking over by the intervention agency in respect of the 1997/98 marketing year must be effected no later than 30 September 1998.

Article 2

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 September 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 September 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30. 12. 1995, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 20, 27. 1. 1998, p. 16.

(3) OJ L 98, 31. 3. 1998, p. 21.

(4) OJ L 182, 25. 6. 1998, p. 8.
#### Brown *v.*The State.

Violating Prohibition Law.

(Decided February 6, 1917.

74 South. 394.)

1. Criminal Law; Charge of Court; Evidence. — Construing §§ 5362, and 5364, Code 1907, it is held that an oral, general affirmative charge given on behalf of the state on oral request was a charge on the effect of the evidence and erroneous.

2. Trial; Province of Court and Jury. — Where the evidence of defendant and another witness for defendant made a material conflict in the evidence, the general affirmative charge could not be given, as it is for the jury to determine the weight of the evidence.

Appeal from Pike Law Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Borum.

William T. Brown was convicted of violating the prohiibtion law and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

W. E. Griffin, for appellant.

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

PELHAM, P. J.

The complaint on which the defendant was tried charged the defendant in three different counts with violations of the prohibition laws. It affirmatively appears from the recitals in the record that the court, at the oral request of the state’s counsel, orally gave the jury the general affirmative charge in behalf of the state on each count of the complaint. To this action of the court an exception was duly reserved by the defendant.

(1) The court is not permitted, under the statute of this state, to charge upon the effect of the evidence, unless required to do so by one of the parties (Code 1907, § 5362), and charges *569moved for, or required to be given, by either party, must be in writing (Code 1907, § 5364). The court’s oral charge, not given on written request, was a charge on the effect of the evidence and erroneous. — Code 1907, §§ 5362, 5364; *Fidelity & Dep. Co., etc., v. Metal, etc., Co.,*162 Ala. 323, 327, 50 South. 186.

(2) If the instruction had been duly and properly requested in writing, under the evidence on the trial, it could not have been properly given, as the evidence given by the defendant and his wife, as well as other witnesses introduced in behalf of the defendant, made a material conflict in the evidence as to the guilt of the defendant of the offenses charged against him, and it was for the jury and not the court to determine the weight to be accorded this evidence, and pass upon its sufficiency or failure to overcome the prima facie case made out by the state’s evidence. See *King v. State,*151 Ala. 12, 44 South. 200; *Brewer v. State,*113 Ala. 106, 21 South. 355; *Wright v. State,*156 Ala. 108, 47 South. 201.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned, Gary D. Woerz, CFO and President
of American International Industries, Inc, a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the
following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
with respect to the following ammended quarterly report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period
ended September 30, 2005.

The undersigned certifies that the above
quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above ammended quarterly report
fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of American International
Industries, Inc. and results of its operations.

Date: February 14, 2006
Gary D. Woerz
Chief Financial Officer/s/ Gary D. Woerz
#### § 91.1607 [Reserved]
#### KROGER GROCERY & BAKING CO v SCHWER, Auditor

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Erie Co

No. 311.

Decided October 21, 1929

Messrs. Nichols, Morrill, Wood, Marx & Ginter, Cincinnati, and G. C. Steinemann, Sandusky, for Kroger Co.

Messrs. King, Ramsey' & Flynn, and Clarence Moyer, all of Sandusky, for Schwer.

LLOYD, J.

The only question involved is whether the sales of cigarettes by plaintiff hereinabove enumerated constituted engaging *“in*the wholesale business of trafficking in cigarettes” within the meaning of 5894 GC. According to Webster the term “traffic” means “to pass goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money” and the term “business”, in a general sense, includes every kind of employment, the pur*663pose of which is to gain a livelihood or obtain a profit, but as used in this statute it has, in our judgment, a more restricted meaning. The legislature has not defined what shall constitute “wholesale business’.’ as that term is used in this statute, although it would seem peculiarly proper, if not essential, that this should have been done.

Every one at all familiar therewith knows that it has "always been customary for retail dealers of cigarettes to sell, upon request therefor, one or more car-' tons, and hitherto no one has questioned the propriety of doing so. It would seem, therefore, that it must be assumed that the Legislature intended the statute to apply to sales of larger quantities than custom had established as being within the proper scope of retail business. Since, under the statute, each of the stores of plaintiff must be considered as separate places of business, we have before' us four actions rather than one, because the question of whether any one of them is “engaged in the wholesale business of trafficking. in cigarettes” must be determined by the character of the business conducted in each store and not by the aggregate of the business carried on in all of them, since the statute provides that the assessment to be paid is “for each place where such business is carried on”. In the instant cases, whatever may be the facts otherwise, the evidence discloses but a single sale of one or more cartons in any of these stores, except one of them, where one sale of two cartons was made in February and one of five cartons in April of 1928. In our judgment, a single act or transaction or two isolated and separate transactions, at least under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, does not constitute engaging “in the wholesale business of trafficking in cigarettes” within the intent and purpose of this statute.

We therefore find in favor of the plaintiff. Decree accordingly.

Williams, J, concurs. Richards, J, not participating.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12188]



[[Page 31152]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


The Joint Staff; National Defense University (NDU), Board of 
Visitors (BOV); Meeting

AGENCY: National Defense University, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The President, National Defense University has scheduled a 
meeting of the Board of Visitors.

DATES: The meeting will be held between 1230-1530 on June 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Room 155B, Marshall Hall, 
Building 62, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, University Operations, 
National Defense University Fort Lesley J. NcNair, Washington, D.C. 
20319-6000. To reserve space, interested persons should phone (202) 
685-3937.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda will include present and future 
educational and research plans for the National Defense University and 
its components. The meeting is open to the public, but the limited 
space available for observers will be allocated on a first come, first 
served basis.

    Dated: May 10, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-12188 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Information and Intelligent Systems (1200).                    

*Date/Time:*                         February 1-4, 2000 8:30 am-5:00 pm.                    

*Place:*                         The River Inn Hotel, 924 25th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Ephraim Glinert, Acting Division Director National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230 (703) 306-1926.                    

*Minutes:*                         May be obtained from the contact person listed above.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate Information and Data Management Program proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information, financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: January 13, 2000.

Karen J. York, 

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-1232 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### § 1425.4 Duty of parties.

It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in any meetings arranged by the Service for the purpose of assisting in the settlement of a negotiation dispute.
§ 10.3 Coverage. ( a ) This part applies to any new contract with the Federal Government, unless excluded by § 10.4, provided that: ( 1 ) ( i ) It is a procurement contract for construction covered by the Davis-Bacon Act;
( ii ) It is a contract for services covered by the Service Contract Act;
( iii ) It is a contract for concessions, including any concessions contract excluded from coverage under the Service Contract Act by Department of Labor regulations at 29 CFR 4.133(b); or
( iv ) It is a contract entered into with the Federal Government in connection with Federal property or lands and related to offering services for Federal employees, their dependents, or the general public; and
( 2 ) The wages of workers under such contract are governed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Service Contract Act, or the Davis-Bacon Act.
( b ) For contracts covered by the Service Contract Act or the Davis-Bacon Act, this part applies to prime contracts only at the thresholds specified in those statutes. For procurement contracts where workers' wages are governed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, this part applies when the prime contract exceeds the micro-purchase threshold, as defined in 41 U.S.C. 1902(a).
( c ) This part only applies to contracts with the Federal Government requiring performance in whole or in part within the United States. If a contract with the Federal Government is to be performed in part within and in part outside the United States and is otherwise covered by the Executive Order and this part, the minimum wage requirements of the Order and this part would apply with respect to that part of the contract that is performed within the United States.
( d ) This part does not apply to contracts for the manufacturing or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles, or equipment to the Federal Government that are subject to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, 41 U.S.C. 6501 *et seq.*
§ 1635.12 Medical information that is not genetic information. ( a ) *Medical information about a manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition.* ( 1 ) A covered entity shall not be considered to be in violation of this part based on the use, acquisition, or disclosure of medical information that is not genetic information about a manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition of an employee or member, even if the disease, disorder, or pathological condition has or may have a genetic basis or component.
( 2 ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the acquisition, use, and disclosure of medical information that is not genetic information about a manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition is subject to applicable limitations under sections 103(d)(1)-(4) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(1)-(4)), and regulations at 29 CFR 1630.13, 1630.14, and 1630.16.
( b ) *Genetic information related to a manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition.* Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, genetic information about a manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition is subject to the requirements and prohibitions in sections 202 through 206 of GINA and §§ 1635.4 through 1635.9 of this part.
EBC and NH BIA

Curt Spalding

July 17, 2014

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1

“...those who claim the science is unsettled or action is too costly 

are simply trying to ignore the problem.....

...viewing climate change in terms of risk assessment and risk 

management makes clear to me that taking a cautiously 

conservative stance — that is, waiting for more information 

before acting — is actually taking a very radical risk. We’ll never 

know enough to resolve all of the uncertainties. But we know 

enough to recognize that we must act now.”

--Henry M. Paulson Jr.
“Climate change ...can add to the challenges of global 

instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict. Food and water 

shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and 

resources, more severe natural disasters – all place 

additional burdens on economies, societies and 

institutions around the world.”

--Chuck Hagel, United States Defense Secretary 

The Clean Power Plan Proposal Deals With the 

Largest Source of GHG Emissions in the U.S.

6
Building Block Strategy EPA Used to 

Calculate the State Goal

Maximum Flexibility:

Examples of State 

Compliance Measures

1. Make fossil fuel-fired

power plants more 

efficient

Efficiency Improvements Efficiency improvements

Co-firing or switching to natural 

gas

Coal retirements

Retrofit CCS (e.g.,WA Parish in 

Texas)

2. Use lower-emitting power 

sources more

Dispatch changes to 

existing natural gas 

combined cycle (CC)

Dispatch changes to existing 

natural gas CC

3. Build more zero/lowemitting energy sourcesRenewable Energy

Certain Nuclear

New NGCC

Renewables

Nuclear (new and up-rates)

New coal with CCS

4. Use electricity more 

efficiently

Demand-side energy 

efficiency programs

Demand-side energy efficiency 

programs

Transmission efficiency 

improvements

Energy storage

7
States and Communities with 

Programs That Reduce Carbon Pollution

State programs that reduce carbon include carbon 

cap and trade programs and energy efficiency and 

renewable energy standards or goals. 

8
8/25/2014

22%

12%

-20%

-71%

-93%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

New England Economic Growth and ISO New England System 

Emissions, 1999-2012

New England GDP Total Generation CO2 Emissions NOx Emissions SO2 Emissions

Data Sources: 2012 ISO New England Electric Generator Air Emissions 

Report, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
The Clean Power Plan Proposal Deals With the 

Largest Source of GHG Emissions in the U.S.

10
NEW FUEL STANDARDS
CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN:

UNDERSTANDING REGIONAL IMPACTS

Climate Adaptation Reports

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/adaptation

October 2010: Initial report to the 

President: 

5 major recommendations

Recommendation #1: Each Federal 

Agency should develop a Climate

Change Adaptation Plan

(due to CEQ June 29, 2012)

October 2011: Progress report published
Summit Date: 

Friday, November 8, 2013 

Johnson & Wales University, Harborside Campus, 

Providence RI 

Report Date: 

March 2014
§ 18.103 Rulings on evidence. ( a ) *Effect of erroneous ruling.* Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and ( 1 ) *Objection.* In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or
( 2 ) *Offer of proof.* In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the judge by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked. A substantial right of the party is affected unless it is more probably true than not true that the error did not materially contribute to the decision or order of the judge. Properly objected to evidence admitted in error does not affect a substantial right if explicitly not relied upon by the judge in support of the decision or order.
( b ) *Record of offer and ruling.* The judge may add any other or further statement which shows the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made, and the ruling thereon. The judge may direct the making of an offer in question and answer form.
( c ) *Plain error.* Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the judge.
EX-10.6






Exhibit 10.6




Summary of the Oral Agreements between China Medstar Pte. Ltd.

and Beijing Medstar Hi-Tech Investment Co., Ltd.



On May 30, 2005 and December 31, 2006, Beijing Medstar Hi-Tech Investment Co., Ltd. agreed to
provide to China Medstar Limited, the predecessor entity of China Medstar Pte. Ltd., loans in the
aggregate amount of 38,634 Singapore Dollars. The loans were agreed to be used by China Medstar
Limited for the payment of professional services fees incurred for a private placement transaction.
The loans were unsecured, interest free and repayable on demand.
#### § 313.94 Certification by employer.

Along with the withholding order, the FDIC will send to the employer a certification in a form prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The employer shall complete and return the certification to the FDIC within the time frame prescribed in the instructions to the form. The certification will address matters such as information about the debtor's employment status and disposable pay available for withholding.
# EUR-Lex - 31999D1217(02) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D1217(02)

**Council Decision of 2 December 1999 amending the Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations applicable to Europol employees, with regard to the establishment of remuneration, pensions and other financial entitlements in euro **

*
Official Journal C 364 , 17/12/1999 P. 0003 - 0003 *

COUNCIL DECISION

of 2 December 1999

amending the Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations applicable to Europol employees, with regard to the establishment of remuneration, pensions and other financial entitlements in euro

(1999/C 364/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention)(1), and in particular Article 30(3) thereof,

Having regard to the opinion of the Management Board of Europol,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),

Whereas:

(1) On 31 December 1998 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 on the conversion rates between the euro and the currencies of the Member States adopting the euro(3);

(2) It is desirable that all amounts mentioned in the Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations applicable to Europol employees(4) be expressed in euro,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1. In the Council Act of 3 December 1998, the terms "Dutch guilders" and "NLG" shall be replaced by the term "euro" and "EUR" respectively and amounts expressed in Dutch guilders and NLG shall be replaced by their equivalent in euro units at the conversion rate laid down by the Council.

2. Subsequent to the Council Decision of 2 December 1999 adjusting the remuneration and allowances applicable to Europol employees(5), the Director of Europol shall effect the conversion into euro units of the different financial entitlements referred to in the Staff Regulations on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro(6) and Regulation (EC) No 2866/98.

3. The values established in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be published in Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its adoption by the Council.

Done at Brussels, 2 December 1999.

For the Council

The President

K. HÄKÄMIES

(1) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 2.

(2) Opinion delivered on 6 October 1999 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3) OJ L 359, 31.12.1998, p. 1.

(4) OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 23.

(5) See p. 1 of this Official Journal.

(6) OJ L 162, 19.6.1997, p. 1.