alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31995L0005 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995L0005

**Council Directive 95/5/EEC of 27 February 1995 amending Directive 92/120/EEC on the conditions for granting temporary and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of certain products of animal origin **

*
Official Journal L 051 , 08/03/1995 P. 0012 - 0012 *

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 95/5/EC of 27 February 1995 amending Directive 92/120/EEC on the conditions for granting temporary and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of certain products of animal origin

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

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

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),

Whereas, under Directive 92/120/EEC (4), the maximum output for slaughterhouses benefiting from the derogation was increased to 20 livestock units per week and 1 000 livestock units per year respectively, until 28 February 1995;

Whereas the Council has received a proposal from the Commission aimed at reviewing the provisions applicable to small establishments benefiting from the derogation and whereas the Council has been unable to act on that proposal before 28 February 1995;

Whereas it is possible that, by reason of certain particular situations, establishments may not be able, by 1 March 1995, to observe all the specific rules laid down; whereas, pending a decision by the Council and in order to take into account local conditions and to avoid abrupt closures of establishments, provision should be made for a system of granting temporary and limited derogations,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

The date '28 February 1995' in Article 2 (2) of Directive 92/120/EEC shall be replaced by '30 June 1995'.

Article 2

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 1 March 1995. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.

Article 3

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 February 1995.

For the Council

The President

J. PUECH

(1) OJ No C 84, 2. 4. 1990, p. 100.

(2) OJ No C 183, 15. 7. 1991.

(3) OJ No C 332, 31. 12. 1990, p. 62.

(4) OJ No L 62, 15. 3. 1993, p. 86. Directive as last amended by Directive 94/70/EC (OJ No L 368, 31. 12. 1994, p. 32).
#### OHIO PUBLIC SERVICE CO v SCHOEWE

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Erie Co.

No. 301.

Decided May 13, 1929

King, Ramsey & Flynn, Sandusky, for Pub Serv Co.

H. L. Peeke and J. F. Hertlein, both of Sandusky, for Schoewe.

*391LLOYD, J.

An examination of the record induces the belief that the amount of the verdict and judgment are excessive and manifestly ■ against the weight of the evidence.

The written instruction requested by the utility company to be given to the jury before argument, and which the court refused, reads:—

> “No.damages c,an be included or considered as caused by plaintiff, or its officers or employes, in trespassing upon or in any .other manner injuring the remaining property of the defendant, as such damages are wholly and entirely speculative and do not necessarily and reasonably follow from the construction and operation of the power line proposed and claimed by the plaintiff.”

This being a proper request and having been presented in writing before argument, should have been given. Refusal to do so constitutes reversible error. For this reason and because the verdict and judgment are manifestly against the weight of the evidence, the judgment is reversed and the proceedings remanded to the court of common pleas for a new trial in that court.

Williams and Richards, JJ, concur.
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Gary D. Woerz,
CFO of American International Industries, Inc., pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

I, Gary D. Woerz, certify that:

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

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. As the registrant's certifying officer, 
I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and
procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to the undersigned by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this quarterly report management's conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.  I have disclosed, based on my most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors:

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management who have a significant
role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.  I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors
that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 31, 2006, 
Gary D. Woerz
Chief Financial Officer/s/ Gary D. Woerz
<PAGE>





EXHIBIT 32.1



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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tower Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald
F. Schenkel, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief 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.


/s/ Donald F. Schenkel
--------------------------------
Donald F. Schenkel
Chairman of the Board, President
and Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2003
[Civ. No. 1801.

First Appellate District.

November 15, 1916.]

#### CHARLES H. HUSBAND, Respondent, v. WILLIAM A. HUSSEY, Appellant.

Contract—Sale of Stock—Number of Shares—Finding on Conflicting Evidence—Appeal.—Where in an action to recover the value of ten shares of the capital stock of a certain corporation which, it was alleged, the defendant for a valuable consideration had agreed to deliver to the plaintiff, the evidence is in pronounced conflict as to whether or not the defendant had agreed to deliver to the plaintiff said ten shares, or any number of shares in excess of the ten shares which the complaint alleged the defendant had delivered, the find-’ ing of the trial court that the agreement called for the delivery of twenty shares is conclusive on the appellate court.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order denying a new trial. N. D. Arnot, Judge presiding.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Robinson, Gillis & Sizer, and Robinson & Sizer, for Appellant.

Reed, Nusbaumer & Bingaman, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

This is an appeal from a judgment in the sum of one thousand dollars entered in favor of the plaintiff in an action for the value of ten shares of the capital stock of a certain corporation which, it was alleged, the defendant for a valuable consideration had agreed to deliver to the plaintiff.

The evidence adduced upon the trial of the case was directed chiefly to the issue raised by the defendant’s answer as to whether or not he had agreed to deliver to the plaintiff any number of shares of the corporate stock in controversy in excess of the ten shares which the plaintiff’s complaint alleged that he had received pursuant to his agreement with the defendant.

No point of law is involved in the appeal. It is grounded solely in the contention that the finding of the trial court that the defendant had agreed to deliver twenty and not ten shares *88of the stock in question is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, which, upon that phase of the case, is in pronounced conflict; and we are requested by the appellant to weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of witnesses. This, of course, under the familiar rule, we cannot do.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
Exhibit
      32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350








CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens First
      Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report") I, Mary D. Cohron, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(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.





By:
            /s/Mary
                D. CohronMary
                D. CohronChief
                Executive OfficerDate:
            November
                14, 2007
#### § 1614.603 Voluntary settlement attempts.

Each agency shall make reasonable efforts to voluntarily settle complaints of discrimination as early as possible in, and throughout, the administrative processing of complaints, including the pre-complaint counseling stage. Any settlement reached shall be in writing and signed by both parties and shall identify the claims resolved.

[57 FR 12646, Apr. 10, 1992, as amended at 64 FR 37661, July 12, 1999]
#### § 1917.154 Compressed air.

Employees shall be protected by chip guarding and personal protective equipment complying with the provisions of subpart E of this part during cleaning with compressed air. Compressed air used for cleaning shall not exceed a pressure of 30 psi. Compressed air shall not be used to clean employees.
Martin, Michael (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Everyone: 

Martin, Michael (OST) 

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:16 PM -·-~~' -' 

Joseph Gray (supervisor@town.massena.ny.us); Frank ~ia~<;>stir')_Q__ --,, ,

1 (massenaairport@ymail.com); Jason Clark (bdc@nnassenaw8rks:comJ; - ·~. 

mayor@village.massena.ny.us 

Boutique Air, Shawn Simpson; Andrew Bonney; Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) 

EAS at Massena 

BoutiqueAir Proposal - Massena.pdf; Cape Air proposal - Massena - October 27, 

2014.pdf 

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Massena and give you an opportunity to offer 

any comments on the record before we submit a recommendation to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs. We issued Order 2014-9-14 on September 23, 2014, requesting proposals from airlines interested 

in providing EAS for a new term. In response to our request, Cape Air (the incumbent) and Boutique Air submitted 

proposals. 

I have attached each airline's bid for your review and I expect it to be uploaded on www.regulations.gov sometime this 

afternoon. I request that you review each proposal and submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but no 

later than Friday, November 14. Please send your comments directly to me via e-mail at 

michael.f.martin@dot.gov. Also, please forward this e-mail to all relevant parties that I have not included on the 

distribution list. 

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. 

Regards, 

Michael Martin 

United States Department of Transportation 

Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service Development Program {SCASDP) 

(202) 366-6494 

1
§ 61.100 Pilots based on small islands. ( a ) An applicant located on an island from which the flight training required in § 61.99(a)(1) of this part cannot be accomplished without flying over water for more than 10 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline need not comply with the requirements of that section. However, if other airports that permit civil operations are available to which a flight may be made without flying over water for more than 10 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline, the applicant must show completion of a dual flight between two airports, which must include three landings at the other airport.
( b ) An applicant who complies with paragraph (a) of this section and meets all requirements for the issuance of a recreational pilot certificate, except the requirements of § 61.99(a)(1) of this part, will be issued a pilot certificate with an endorsement containing the following limitation, “Passenger carrying prohibited on flights more than 10 nautical miles from (the appropriate island).” The limitation may be subsequently amended to include another island if the applicant complies with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section for another island.
( c ) Upon meeting the requirements of § 61.99(a)(1) of this part, the applicant may have the limitation(s) in paragraph (b) of this section removed.
CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Kyocera Corporation (the Company), hereby
certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: September 11, 2003



/s/ Hideki IshidaName: Hideki IshidaTitle: Managing Executive Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management

HiLine District 

Map W.7 

Wind Energy Development Potential

Comparison of Alternatives Alternative B 

Map shows the Wind Energy Development Potential and those 

areas that are avoidance or exclusion areas for development in

Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Boundaries are not intended to confer authority, responsibility, 

or jurisdiction over lands and waters that are not administered 

Development Potential by the BLM. Proposed boundaries and regulations apply only to

the BLM-administered lands within those boundaries. 

High

Medium
 

Low
 

Avoidance Areas
 

Exclusion Areas Alternative C
 

Alternative D 

0 50 

Miles 

100 

Created by the Malta Field Office in December 2012 

Albers Equal Area, NAD83, Meters 

Glacier 

National Park 

Blackfeet Indian 

Reservation 

Rocky Boys 

Indian Reservation Ft. Belknap 

Indian Reservation 

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

Glacier 

National Park 

Blackfeet Indian 

Reservation 

Glacier 

National Park 

Blackfeet Indian
 

Reservation
 

Rocky Boys Ft. Belknap Indian Reservation Indian Reservation 

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

Rocky Boys 

Indian Reservation Ft. Belknap 

Indian Reservation 

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge This map is intended for display purposes.
 

This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards.
 

This product was developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.
 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by the BLM.
#### Zacheus E. Ladd, Resp’t, *v.*Sylvester French, App’lt.

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

*Filed July 6, 1889.)*

Highways—Right to use gravel adjacent to highway for the purpose of improving same.

Gravel cannot be dug from between the traveled part of a public high way and the fence of an adjacent owner for the purpose of improving the road at a spot other than that from which it is taken. *Robert*v. *Sadler,*104 Ñ. Y., 229; 5 N. Y. State Rep., 594, followed.

*Thomas V. Bussell,*for app’lt; *Edward H. Neary,*for resp’t.

Learned, P. J.

This case involves a small amount, and yet the principle in question is very important.

' The plaintiff is the owner of land over which a highway runs. The defendant; by the direction of the commissioner of highways, dug gravel from the plaintiff’s land between the traveled part of the road and the plaintiff’s fence, and carried it away and put it on other parts of the road within the road district.

In our opinion the question is settled by the decision in *Robert*v. *Sadler*(104 N. Y., 229; 5 N. Y. State Rep., 594), and it would be useless to discuss it. This gravel was not taken for the purpose of reducing the highway to a proper grade, which would seem, by that opinion, to be permissible. It was taken to fill up some unequalities elsewhere, or to improve the road elsewhere. The gravel was plaintiff’s, although the public had a right of way over it. And this taking of the gravel was not incident to the rights of the public.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Landon and Ingalls, JJ., concur.
#### § 137.42 Fastening of safety belts and shoulder harnesses.

No person may operate an aircraft in operations required to be conducted under part 137 without a safety belt and shoulder harness properly secured about that person except that the shoulder harness need not be fastened if that person would be unable to perform required duties with the shoulder harness fastened.

[Amdt. 137-10, 44 FR 61325, Oct. 25, 1979]
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 21, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-0012 Lower Tribunal Nos. 16-5009 CC, 18-137 AP

________________ 

### Ilana Rigwan , Appellant, vs. 

### South Beach Bayside Condominium Association I, Inc. , Appellee. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Patricia Marino Pedraza, Judge. Ilana Rigwan a/k/a L Powers, in proper person. No appearance, for appellee. Before LOGUE, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12224]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Draft License Application and Preliminary Draft 
Environmental Assessment (PDEA) and Request for Preliminary Terms and 
Conditions

May 10, 2000.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been 
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 309-000.
    c. Applicant: Sithe Pennsylvania Holdings LLP.
    d. Name of Project: Piney.
    e. Location: On the Clarion River, in Clarion County, Pennsylvania.
    f. Applicant Contact: Thomas Teitt, Sithe Northeast, 1001 Broad 
St., Johnstown, PA 15907-1050.
    g. FERC Contact: William Guey-Lee (202) 219-2808, Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a1d030606030b07440d1f0f13060f0f2a0c0f1809440c0f0e441f19"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="acdbc5c0c0c5cdc182cbd9c9d5c0c9c9eccac9decf82cac9c882d9df">[email protected]</span></a>.
    h. Sithe Pennsylvania Holdings LLP mailed a copy of the PDEA to 
interested parties on April 28, 2000. The Commission received a copy of 
the PDEA on May 1, 2000. Copies of the documents are available from 
Sithe Pennsylvania Holdings LLP at the above address.
    i. With this notice we are soliciting preliminary terms, 
conditions, recommendations, prescriptions, and comments on the PDEA 
and draft license application. All comments on the PDEA and draft 
license application should be sent to the address above in item (f) 
with one copy filed with the Commission at the following address: 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, David P. Boergers, Secretary, 888 
First St. NE, Washington, DC 20426. All comments must include the 
project name and number, and bear the heading ``Preliminary Comments,'' 
``Preliminary Recommendations,'' ``Preliminary Terms and Conditions,'' 
or ``Preliminary Prescriptions.'' Any party interested in commenting on 
the draft license application and the PDEA, must do so on or before 
July 26, 2000.
    j. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the STATE 
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO), as required by Section 106, 
National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12224 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Jay CRESWELL and Alice D. Creswell (Husband and Wife), Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 18251.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 10, 1960.

Rehearing Denied July 6,1960.

Jay Creswell, Orlando, Fla., for petitioners.

Karl Schmeidler, Lee A. Jackson, Meyer Rothwacks, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Charles P. Dugan, Sp. Atty., Hart H. Spiegel, Chief Counsel, I. R. S., Washington, D. C., Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before TUTTLE, CAMERON and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After careful consideration of the record this Court is of the opinion that the decision below is correct and must be affirmed, except for the imposition of additions for substantial underestimation of estimated taxes for 1948 and 1949. Except as to the imposition of these additions, we adopt and approve the decision and opinion of the Tax Court. T.C. Memo. 1958-54.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part-
#### GEORGE AST CANDY CO v KLING

Ohio Supreme Court

No. 21657.

Decided Nov. 20, 1929

Syllabus by

MARSHALL, CJ.

AUTOMOBILES

(50 Re) Section 6310-28a GC, does not confer an absolute and unqualified right of way upon the driver of a motor “vehicle approaching from the right,” neither does it excuse the driver of such vehicle from the common law duty to exercise ordinary care. Heidle v. Baldwin, 118 Ohio St., 375, approved and followed.

Kinkade, Robinson, Matthias and Allen, JJ., concur.

Robinson and Day, JJ., dissent.