alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0338 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0338

**2000/338/EC: Commission Decision of 13 April 2000 amending Decision 97/222/EC laying down the list of third countries from which the Member States authorise the importation of meat products (notified under document number C(2000) 1016) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 117 , 18/05/2000 P. 0032 - 0037 *

Commission Decision

of 13 April 2000

amending Decision 97/222/EC laying down the list of third countries from which the Member States authorise the importation of meat products

(notified under document number C(2000) 1016)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/338/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries(1), as last amended by Council Directive 97/79/EC(2), and in particular Articles 21(a) and 22 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 97/222/EC(3), as amended by Decision 1999/62/EC(4), lays down the list of third countries from which the Member States authorise the importation of meat products.

(2) This list must be updated in order to take into account the health situation in the exporting third countries; it is therefore necessary to correct the country code for Brazil; furthermore, in view of the presence of CSF in parts of the Czech Republic, to require heat treatment at 70 °C to pigmeat products derived from wild; and to require the same heat treatment at 70 °C to pigmeat products coming from Yugoslavia in order to be consistent with the EC animal health rules.

(3) Decision 97/222/EC must be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex to Decision 97/222/EC is amended as follows:

1. part I is replaced by part I of Annex to the present Decision;

2. part II is replaced by part II of Annex to the present Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 April 2000.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972, p. 28.

(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 31.

(3) OJ L 89, 4.4.1997, p. 39.

(4) OJ L 20, 27.1.1999, p. 27.

ANNEX

PART I

Description of regionalised territories as laid down for the countries listed in Parts II - III

>TABLE>

PART II

Third countries or parts thereof from where meat products are authorised for importation into the European Community

>TABLE>
#### WILLIAMS v. THE STATE.

(Decided December 19, 1916.)

Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell.

No counsel marked for appellant.

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

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32  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  Intelligent Living Corp.(the "Company") On  Form  10-QSB  for  the period  ended  February 29, 2008 as  filed  with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the "Report"),  I, Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial 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  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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Michael F. Holloran Michael F. Holloran Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer  April 21, 2008
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of ETI Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul Lanham, President and Principal Accounting 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 result of operations of the Company.

\s\               Paul LanhamPaul LanhamPresident August 18, 2003

----
#### § 1919.23 Means of derrick attachment.

Appropriate measures shall be taken to prevent the foot of a derrick from being accidentally lifted from its socket or support during the test.
§ ̈¦15 

 ̈¦§15 

GLACIER 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
 

HiLine District Office 

Rights-ofWay (ROW)

Comparison of Alternatives
 

Maps show the

Transportation/Utility Corridors 

and Rights-of-Way

Avoidance/Exclusion areas for

Alternatives A & B.

Alternative A has one 4.5 mile 

wide corridor along the

Northern Border Pipeline.

Alternative B's corridors follow 

roadways and extend 1/2 mile 

on either side of the center line. 

Towns 

# Communication Sites 

ROW Avoidance area 

ROW Exclusion area 

Transportation/Utility Corridor 

RMP boundary

County Line 

Canada 

Interstate ¬ 

Highway or State Route 

Albers Equal Area, NAD83, Meters Created by the Malta Field Office in December 2012 

A Allb be er rt ta a

SSaass kka attcchheewwaan n

GLACIER #
 #
 

Browni Cut Bank TOOLE BLAINE 

# ng 

£¤89

Shelby 

232 

LIBERTY 

Chi

2 

")

£¤

HILL 

nook 

Chester Havre #

# Malta # # 

#
 

CHOUTEAU 

66 191 

# PHILLIPS

Fort Benton 

") £¤

£¤87 Glasgow 

VALLEY 

Map W.1 

0 25 50 

Miles 

Alternative A

(Current Management) 

1:2,300,000 

Alternative B 

A Allb be er rt ta a

SSaass kka att cchheewwaan n

#
 #
 ")232

Browning Cut Bank TOOLE

LIBERTY 

£¤89 Shelby 

2 

HILL 

£¤

Chester Havre Chinook 

#
 Glasgow 

This map is intended for display purposes.

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. This map may not meet National

Map Accuracy Standards. This product 

was developed through digital means and

information may be updated without 

notification. 

CHOUTEAU 

£¤87 

# Fort Benton 

") £¤

# BLAINE 

66 191 

PH

#
 

# # Malta #

ILLIPS VALLEY
#### Pensacola Electric Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. Pauline Humphreys, *Defendant in Error.*

Where the members of the appellate court are equally divided in opinion as to whether a judgment on writ of error should be reversed or affirmed, and there is no prospects of a change of judicial opinion, the judgment should be affirmed, so that the litigation may not be unduly prolonged.

This case was decided by the cburt En Banc.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Blount & Blount & Garter,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*B. P. Reese,*for Defendant in Error.

*390Per Curiam.

This cause having been considered by the court, and Mr. Chief Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Taylor and Mr. Justice Shackleford being of opinion that the judgment should be reversed, while Mr. Justice Cockrell, Mr. Justice Hocker and Mr. Justice Parkhill are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, and there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the judgment should be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51, and it is so ordered.
###### 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.

#### § 1926.103 Respiratory protection.

Note:

The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at [29 CFR 1910.134](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.134) of this chapter.

[[63 FR 1297](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/63-FR-1297); Jan. 8, 1998]
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Korn/Ferry International,
a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his best knowledge:

(a) the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2007 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

Dated: June 29, 2007



By:

/s/    PAUL C. REILLYName:

Paul C. ReillyTitle:

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/    GARY D. BURNISONName:

Gary D. BurnisonTitle:

Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice Presidentand Director




1
**Exhibit 31.2**

##  

## Louisville Gas andElectric Company

##  

I, S. Bradford Rives, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Louisville Gasand Electric Company;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisannual report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.

 

Date:  March 29, 2004

 
| /s/  S. Bradford Rives |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| S. Bradford Rives           |
| Chief Financial Officer     |

 

1

----
#### The People *vs.*Williams.

NEW-YORK,

May, 1838.

On an indictment against two for felony, and a separate trial of one of the defendants before the arraignment of the other on the motion of the proseen, tor, the defendant not arraigned is not a competent witness for the other, notwithstanding the statute securing in such cases a separate trial.-’

Á joint indictment for *obtaining money by false pretences*having been found against the prisoner and one Phettiplace, the district attorney of Chenango, previous to the arraignment of Phettiplace, elected to try Williams separately, and accordingly proceeded to his trial; it not appearing that any objection to such course was made by the prisoner. After the prosecutor rested, Phettiplace was called as a witness for the prisoner, who being objected to by the district attorney as incompetent, was excluded by the court. The prisoner having excepted to the decision, the indictment and bill of exceptions were removed into this court. The case was submitted on written arguments.

*C. A. Thorp,*for the prisoner.

*J. Clapp,*(district attorney of Chenango,) for the people.

*By the Court,*

Nelson, Ch. J.

The competency of the witness is the only point made in the case.

By the statute, 2 R. S. 735, § 20, when two or more defendants shall be jointly indicted for *felony,*any one defendant requiring it shall be tried separately; in other cases, defendants jointly indicted shall be tried separately or jointly, in the discretion of the court. Before the statute, this discretion existed in all cases where the right of peremptory challenge was out of question. 7 Cowen, 188. The statute *378secures a right to a defendant indicted upon a charge of pe]ony? (jj¿ not before exist: that is, a separate trial where he is not entitled to a peremptory challenge; the language is purposely broad, to settle a doubt suggested of the prisoner’s right, even where the peremptory challenge belonged to him. See Note of Revisers to the section. It belongs to him where the offence is capital, or is punishable with imprisonment in the stale prison for ten years or any longer term. 2 R. S. 734, § 9. The act abridges the power of the court in cases where the prisoner insists upon a sepa- . rate trial—it must be granted—but the power' before possessed to grant it is not taken away. The court may direct a- separate trial as before, without consulting him. The prisoner may now ask it as a right, and that is all the change made in this respect.

In this case therefore, even aside from the fact that there was no objection to the measure, none could have been effectual if interposed, conceding the offence to be a felony, as no doubt it is within the definition of the statute. 2 R. S-702,.§ 30, and 677, § 53. If the defendant was rightfully tried alone, then the case of *The People*v. *Bill,*10 Johns. R. 95, is decisive against the competency of his co-defendant. 1 Phil. Ev. 62,
§ 1977.6 Unprotected activities distinguished. ( a ) Actions taken by an employer, or others, which adversely affect an employee may be predicated upon nondiscriminatory grounds. The proscriptions of section 11(c) apply when the adverse action occurs because the employee has engaged in protected activities. An employee's engagement in activities protected by the Act does not automatically render him immune from discharge or discipline for legitimate reasons, or from adverse action dictated by non-prohibited considerations. See, *NLRB* v. *Dixie Motor Coach Corp.,* 128 F. 2d 201 (5th Cir., 1942).
( b ) At the same time, to establish a violation of section 11(c), the employee's engagement in protected activity need not be the sole or primary consideration behind discharge or other adverse action. If the discharge or other adverse action would not have taken place “but for” engagement in protected activity, section 11(c) has been violated. See *Bostock* v. *Clay County, Ga.,* 140 S Ct. 1731, 1739 (2020); *Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr.* v. *Nassar,* 570 U.S. 338 (2013). Ultimately, the issue as to whether a discharge or other adverse action was because of protected activity will have to be determined on the basis of the facts in the particular case.
[38 FR 2681, Jan. 29, 1973, as amended at 86 FR 49476, Sept. 3, 2021]
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR 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, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.755 Column anchorage. ( a ) *General requirements for erection stability.* ( 1 ) All columns shall be anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor rods (anchor bolts).
( 2 ) Each column anchor rod (anchor bolt) assembly, including the column-to-base plate weld and the column foundation, shall be designed to resist a minimum eccentric gravity load of 300 pounds (136.2 kg) located 18 inches (.46m) from the extreme outer face of the column in each direction at the top of the column shaft.
( 3 ) Columns shall be set on level finished floors, pre-grouted leveling plates, leveling nuts, or shim packs which are adequate to transfer the construction loads.
( 4 ) All columns shall be evaluated by a competent person to determine whether guying or bracing is needed; if guying or bracing is needed, it shall be installed.
( b ) *Repair, replacement or field modification of anchor rods (anchor bolts).* ( 1 ) Anchor rods (anchor bolts) shall not be repaired, replaced or field-modified without the approval of the project structural engineer of record.
( 2 ) Prior to the erection of a column, the controlling contractor shall provide written notification to the steel erector if there has been any repair, replacement or modification of the anchor rods (anchor bolts) of that column.
#### AMERICAN CASUALTY CO v STILLMAN (2 cases)

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided Oct. 19, 1928

Barnum, Hammond, Stephens, Patchin & Hoyt, Youngstown, for Casualty Co.

T. M. Cooney and Barrett & Kane, all of Youngstown, for Stillman.

FARR, J.

Sec. 6308 GC, is a sufficient answer to this contention and sustains the right to bring suit as it was brought in Mahoning County. However, the statute extends its terms sufficiently to permit action to be brought in any county where .service may be had upon the defendant.

Second, it is contended that error intervened by the trial court’s exclusion of a written statement or reservation agreement which w,as prepared following the accident, as disclosed by defendant’s exhibit 1, Record 168, but which Gorodetzer refused to sign. It is claimed that Gorodetzer’s refusal to sign the instrument in question indicated his refusal to co-operate with the Insurance Company in the defense of the action. However, it may be observed that there was no provision in the policy of insurance requiring Gorodetzer to sign such statement or agreement. Therefore, he had a right to refuse to do so and the exclusion of the document was not prejudicial error.

The third and fourth grounds of error relate to the charge of the trial court with reference to fraud and collusion and wherein it is claimed that the trial court instructed the jury that proof of the alleged fraud must be made by clear and convincing evidence. This was a higher degree of proof than is required in such cases. However, it should be observed that the trial court said, on pages 159 and 160 of the Record, that “clear and convincing evidence means that the evidence which tends to prove the alleged fraud or mistake, if standing alone and uncontradicted, would establish a prima facie case of fraud” , and at page 150 the jury is instructed that:

> “These are matters of defense and consequently the burden is upon the defendant, the American Casualty Company, to maintain the same by a preponderance of the evidence.”

*445And at page 151 the trial court again refers to the preponderance of the evidence and in two instances stated that such would determine the question. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, and in view of the fact that there is no specific proof of fraud and collusion, it follows that the court’s instruction to the jury was not erroneously prejudicial, altho it is disclosed by the facts that when Gorodetzer came to Youngstown that he went directly to Stillman’s office and was taken by Still-man to the office of the attorney for Stillman and Gorodetzer was served with summons in both cases. Gorodetzer, however, turned the summons over to Thayer, the adjuster for the Casualty Company, with a statement of the manner in which he had been served.

While these facts might indicate that there was some understanding between the parties, yet they are not conclusive of the perpetration of a fraud, and for the reasons given it follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

Pollock and Roberts, JJ., concur.
§ 10.21 Contract clause. ( a ) *Contract clause.* The contractor, as a condition of payment, shall abide by the terms of the applicable Executive Order minimum wage contract clause referred to in § 10.11(a).
( b ) The contractor and any subcontractors shall include in any covered subcontracts the Executive Order minimum wage contract clause referred to in § 10.11(a) and shall require, as a condition of payment, that the subcontractor include the minimum wage contract clause in any lower-tier subcontracts. The prime contractor and any upper-tier contractor shall be responsible for the compliance by any subcontractor or lower-tier subcontractor with the Executive Order minimum wage requirements, whether or not the contract clause was included in the subcontract.
November, 2011

SUMMARY OF FROTH-PAKTM INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE STUDIES

DOW RESTRICTED - For internal use only

CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR2.203(b)
#### § 1902.23 Publication of decisions.

All decisions approving or disapproving a plan shall be published in the Federal Register.