alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31998R1580 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R1580

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/98 of 21 July 1998 establishing unit values for the determination of the customs value of certain perishable goods **

*
Official Journal L 206 , 23/07/1998 P. 0026 - 0031 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1580/98 of 21 July 1998 establishing unit values for the determination of the customs value of certain perishable goods

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 75/98 (4), and in particular Article 173 (1) thereof,

Whereas Articles 173 to 177 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 provide that the Commission shall periodically establish unit values for the products referred to in the classification in Annex 26 to that Regulation;

Whereas the result of applying the rules and criteria laid down in the abovementioned Articles to the elements communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 173 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 is that unit values set out in the Annex to this Regulation should be established in regard to the products in question,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The unit values provided for in Article 173 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 are hereby established as set out in the table in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 July 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 21 July 1998.

For the Commission

Martin BANGEMANN

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 19. 10. 1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 17, 21. 1. 1997, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 253, 11. 10. 1993, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 7, 13. 1. 1998, p. 3.

ANNEX

>TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,125,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               33,792,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   812,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,165,000
<PP&E>                                     189,021,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              27,421,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             211,060,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,085,000
<BONDS>                                    157,676,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       35,907,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (14,483,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               211,060,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           205,304,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              157,673,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            29,568,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          17,479,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                584,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            584,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              4,329,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,745,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.0



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Woronoco Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Cornelius D. Mahoney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that:



| | 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Cornelius D. MahoneyCornelius D. MahoneyChief Executive OfficerNovember 9, 2004






---



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Woronoco Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Debra L. Murphy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that:



| | 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Debra L. MurphyDebra L. MurphyChief Financial OfficerNovember 9, 2004
**EXHIBIT 23.1** **Consent    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration    Statements on    Form S-8    (Nos.    333-67085,333-79269,333-36680,333-47026,333-53332,333-69036,333-101759,333-105864    and    333-130626),    the Registration Statements on    Form S-3    (Nos.    333-81626,333-85996,333-118519,333-120602,333-122068    and    333-131433)    and the Registration Statement on    Form S-4(No. 333-122069    of Digital River, Inc. and in the related Prospectus’) of    our reports dated March 1, 2007, with respect to the    consolidated financial statements of Digital River, Inc.,    Digital River, Inc. management’s assessment of the    effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and    the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting    of Digital River, Inc. included in this Annual Report    (Form 10-K)    for the year ended December 31, 2006.     Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of    Digital River, Inc. listed in Item 15 (a) (2). This    schedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management.    Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.    In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to    above, when considered in relation to the basic financial    statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material    respects, the information set forth therein. /s/  Ernst &    Young LLP     Minneapolis, Minnesota    March 1, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                    18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Financial
Officer of Fortune Entertainment Corporation, that, to his knowledge, the
quarterly report of the company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the company's financial
condition and results of operations.


November 24, 2004


/s/ Phillip Verrill
Phillip Verrill, Chief Financial Officer
WILLIAM MULDROW, JR.

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3116

___ __________________________/

Opinion filed September 27, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

.

John M. Leace, of Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A.,

Tallahassee

, for Appellant; Willia m Muldrow, Jr., pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
-----------------------------------

Comments on EPA's proposed 

Carbon Pollution Standard, 

Henry Hamburger 

henryjh@comcast.net 

May 24, 2012 

Good evening. I'm Henry Hamburger, member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, emeritus 

professor of computer science, at George Mason University, and formerly a tenured mathematical 

social scientist at the University of California, Irvine, where I worked in a field of crucial relevance 

to the issue now before EPA, the study of the multi-person Prisoner's Dilemma game, originated 

by three people independently in 1973, according to "Elsevier's Dictionary of Psychological 

Theories." One got a Nobel prize in economics, another the William James award in psychology, 

and the third one is me. 

I will state the lessons learned from this field and relate them to the need for regulation, 

specifically with regard to carbon pollution. 

Game theory is about interacting decisions. Prisoner's Dilemma was originally a game with just 

two people: For example, two strangers sit in separate rooms without the ability to communicate. 

Each gets an initial stake of $10 - to keep, or maybe not. Each is offered an additional $1 0. If one 

of them takes it, that costs the other one $15. And vice versa. So each has two options: Take itor leave it. No matter what you think the other person will choose, you do best by taking the 

offered extra amount. But if both of you take say yes, you're both worse off (20 minus 15) than if 

each just took the initial stake (10). So individual rational choice defeats the common good. 

Here are 10 lessons teamed from the game called Multi-Person Prisoners' Dilemma: 

1. Many real-life situations have this decision structure. 

2. Most notably situations involving pollution. 

3. Results may involve money, health, and other good things. 

4. The numbers matter, the amount of money, the degree of lost health. 

5. Communication matters. 

6. Voluntary uncritical cooperation is for suckers. 

7. With increasing numbers of players, cooperation gets harder and harder to achieve. 

8. Governments can restructure a situation to induce better outcomes. 

9. A nation sets up the game that businesses play. 

10. Nations are also players- in a global game, where the rules are treaties. 

Here are 3 real, known, solutions to real problems structured like Prisoner's Dilemma: 

1. Congestion charging in urban centers. 

2. Enforced nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. 

3. Government regulation of carbon. 

(so you're not only legal, you're right!) 

Yes, EPA is right to have a Carbon Pollution Standard but 

you can do more! 5 things wony me. 

1. Frackinq is carbon pollution that's huge, upstream and apparently ignored here. 

2. Sequestration is a long-term risk, huge, downstream and apparently ignored here 

3. Old utilities: Where is the pressure to replace them? 

4. Non-utilities and small utilities: Exemption promotes subdividing and decentralizing. 

5. "Averaging" -We need accountability before year 11.
```

[112th Congress Public Law 1]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 125 STAT. 3]]

Public Law 112-1
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
 Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and 
       for other purposes. <<NOTE: Jan. 31, 2011 -  [H.R. 366]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF 
                              PROGRAMS UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS 
                              ACT AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 
                              INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958.

    (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to extend 
temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business Administration'', 
approved October 10, 2006 (Public Law 109-316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most 
recently amended by section 1 of Public Law 111-251 (124 Stat. 2631), is 
amended by striking ``January 31, 2011'' each place it appears and 
inserting ``May 31, 2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on January 30, 2011.

    Approved January 31, 2011.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 366:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 157 (2011):
            Jan. 25, considered and passed House.
            Jan. 26, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on [Part 1926](/current/title-29/part-1926?toc=1)

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At [44 FR 8577](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-8577), Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at [44 FR 20940](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-20940), Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of [29 CFR part 1926](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/part-1926) together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in [29 CFR part 1910](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/part-1910), which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at [84 FR 21597](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-21597), May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1152 Methylene chloride.

Note:

The requirements applicable to construction employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [29 CFR 1910.1052](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1052).

[[62 FR 1619](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/62-FR-1619), Jan. 10, 1997]
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.96


                             AMENDMENT TO LG&E ENERGY CORP.
                               NONQUALIFIED SAVINGS PLAN


1.      Section  5.1 shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety as follows:

        "Section 5. BOOKKEEPING ACCOUNT. Compensation deferred by a
        Participant under a written Deferral Agreement and matching Company
        contributions shall be credited in a dollar amount to a separate
        Bookkeeping Account for each Participant. Compensation deferred under
        subsequent written Deferral Agreements by a Participant shall be added
        to his Bookkeeping Account. Separate Bookkeeping Accounts shall be
        established by each Company, or its designee, for each Participant
        employed thereby."

2.      Section  2.17 shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety as
        follows:

        "Section 2.17 VALUATION DATE. "Valuation Date" means each day of
        the Plan Year or any other date deemed appropriate by the Committee."
        And

3.      Section 5.3 shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety as follows:

        "Section 5.3 CREDITING OF INTEREST. As of each Valuation Date, the
        amount in the Participant's Bookkeeping Account shall be credited at an
        interest rate equal to the Prime Interest Rate reset as of each
        preceding March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31. This rate
        shall be applied to the Participant's Bookkeeping Account as of each
        Valuation Date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, that portion of a
        Participant's Bookkeeping Account established pursuant to Article 12,
        shall be credited at a rate of six percent (6%) per annum." and

        The amendments described herein shall be effective as of October 1,
        1999.
#### Undra FURLOW *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5641

475 S.W. 2d 524

Opinion delivered January 17, 1972

[Rehearing denied February 21, 1972.]

*758
      *Bruce Bennett*and *Thorp Thomas,*for appellant.

*Ray Thornton,*Attorney General; *James A. Neal,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The appellant, charged with murder in the second degree, was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years. He questions the sufficiency of the evidence and several rulings made by the court.

The evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict. The appellant, Undra Furlow, and the decedent, Curtis Lumsey, had been shooting dice with several other persons in a beer tavern in Union county. A quarrel about money arose between Furlow and Lumsey. There is some dispute about whether Lumsey drew a knife from his pocket, but there is no question about Fur-low’s having drawn a pistol from his own pocket. In fact, Furlow admitted that fact in his testimony at the trial, though he also insisted that the weapon would not fire and that someone else in the room must have shot Lumsey. While no witness for the State testified that Furlow fired the fatal shot, there was an abundance of proof from which the jury might have so found. Moreover, the State introduced a confession in which he stated that he shot Lumsey. In similar cases we have held the State’s proof sufficient to sustain the conviction. *Mumphrey*v. *State,*251 Ark. 25, 470 S. W. 2d 589 (1971); *Murchison*v. *State,*249 Ark. 861, 462 S. W. 2d 853 (1971).

With respect to the confession, the appellant argues that the court erred in not submitting the issue of its voluntariness to the jury. There was no such request. The court conducted a Denno hearing in chambers and found, upon sufficient evidence, that the confession was admissible. That is all the statute requires. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2105 (Supp. 1969).

*759We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s action in permitting the prosecuting attorney to treat the defendant’s father as a hostile witness, nor any prejudice even if the ruling had been erroneous. See *Taylor*v. *State,*82 Ark. 540, 102 S. W. 367 (1907). Finally, there was no error in the court’s failure to instruct the jury upon the law of self-defense, not only because no such instruction was asked but also because Furlow testified positively that he did not shoot Lumsey at all and so could not have consistently urged that he acted in self-defense.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 13.1





PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of Ultrapetrol (Bahamas) Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Felipe Menendez Ross, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 results of operations of the Company.





This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: March 14, 2013





/s/ Felipe Menendez Ross


Felipe Menendez Ross


Principal Executive Officer
Order filed April 26, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00161-CV

____________

GALVESTON COUNTY JUDGE MARK HENRY AND COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS RYAN DENNARD, JOE GUISTI, STEPHEN HOLMES 

AND KEN CLARK, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE 

GALVESTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, Appellants

V.

KIMBERLY SULLIVAN, JUDGE PROBATE COURT OF GALVESTON 

COUNTY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14-CV-1112

ORDER

This court issued its opinion and judgment in this case on April 5, 2016. A

motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after judgment is rendered. Tex. 

R. App. Proc. 49.1. Appellants filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for en banc 

reconsideration on April 21, 2016, more than 15 days after judgment was rendered. 
“A court of appeals may extend the time for filing a motion for rehearing or 

en banc reconsideration if a party files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) no 

later than 15 days after the last date for filing the motion.” Tex. R. App. P. 49.8. A 

party seeking an extension of time is required to file a motion specifically stating the 

facts that reasonably explain the need for an extension. Rios v. Calhoon, 889 S.W.2d 

257, 259 (Tex. 1994); see also Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C) (requiring motion to 

extend time to include facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an 

extension). No motion for extension of time was filed in this case, however. 

The Texas Supreme Court has consistently treated minor procedural mistakes 

with leniency to preserve appellate rights. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 

616-17 (Tex. 1997) (implying extension of time when a party perfects an appeal in

good faith within the 15-day period for filing an extension). Thus, a motion for 

extension of time can be implied when a motion for rehearing is filed within the 15-

day period for filing a motion for extension of time if the appellant thereafter files a 

motion complying with Rule 10.5(b)(1) that contains a reasonable explanation to 

support the late filing. Houser v. McElveen, 243 S.W.3d 646, 647 (Tex. 2008); Miller 

v. Greenpark Surgery Ctr. Assoc., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 807 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (implying extension but requiring reasonable 

explanation). 

Accordingly, unless appellants file a motion that complies with Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 10.5(b)(1) and provides a reasonable explanation for the late 

filing of their motion for rehearing and motion for en banc reconsideration by May 

6, 2016, the court will deny the motions as untimely.

PER CURIAM
#### KING MERCANTILE CO. v. HARP.

(Decided January 18, 1917.)

Appeal from Bullock Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. S. Williams.

No counsel marked for appellant.

NORMAN & RAINER, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.