alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31997R2596 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997R2596

**Council Regulation (EC) No 2596/97 of 18 December 1997 extending the period provided for in Article 149 (1) of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden **

*
Official Journal L 351 , 23/12/1997 P. 0012 - 0012 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2596/97 of 18 December 1997 extending the period provided for in Article 149 (1) of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 149 (2) thereof,

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

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

Whereas Article 149 (1) of the 1994 Act of Accession provides for a period during which transitional measures may be adopted to facilitate the transition from the regime existing in Austria, Finland and Sweden at the time of Accession to those resulting from the application of the common organization of the market under the conditions set out in the said Act and, in particular, to overcome the serious difficulties in applying the new regime from the date laid down; whereas that period expires on 31 December 1997;

Whereas, in certain sectors, these difficulties cannot be resolved by the date laid down; whereas the period in question should therefore be extended, as provided for in the Act; whereas the said period should be extended by one year;

Whereas in the milk and milk products sector the requirements relating to the fat content of milk for human consumption continue to cause difficulties for Finland and Sweden; whereas those difficulties cannot be resolved by 31 December 1998; whereas the period in question should therefore be extended, as provided for in the 1994 Act of Accession, by two years in this specific case,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The period referred to in Article 149 (1) of the 1994 Act of Accession is hereby extended until 31 December 1998.

However, with regard to the requirements relating to the fat content of milk for human consumption produced in Finland and Sweden, the period is hereby extended until 31 December 1999.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 18 December 1997.

For the Council

The President

F. BODEN

(1) OJ C 352, 20. 11. 1997, p. 11.

(2) Opinion delivered on 17 December 1997 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP,INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-84582, 333-62600, 333-56906, 333-59959, 333-73015, and 333-33720) pertaining to the Actuate Corporation 1998 Equity Incentive Plan, Actuate Corporation 1998 Employee StockPurchase Plan, Actuate Corporation 1998 Non-Employee Directors Option Plan, Actuate Corporation 2001 Supplemental Stock Option Plan, First Amended and Restated Tidestone Technologies, Inc. Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan of 1999 and TidestoneTechnologies, Inc. 1998 Incentive Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-67220 and 333-34410) of Actuate Corporation and in the related prospectuses of our report dated January 21, 2003, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Actuate Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

San Francisco, California 

March 26, 2003
#### § 1608.2 Written interpretation and opinion.

These Guidelines constitute “a written interpretation and opinion” of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as that term is used in section 713(b)(1) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-12(b)(1), and § 1601.33 of the Procedural Regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (29 CFR 1601.30; 42 FR 55,394 (October 14, 1977)). Section 713(b)(1) provides:

In any action or proceeding based on any alleged unlawful employment practice, no person shall be subject to any liability or punishment for or on account of (1) the commission by such person of an unlawful employment practice if he pleads and proves that the act or omission complained of was in good faith, in conformity with, and in reliance on any written interpretation or opinion of the Commission * * *. Such a defense, if established, shall be a bar to the action or proceeding, notwithstanding that * * * after such act or omission, such interpretation or opinion is modified or rescinded or is determined by judicial authority to be invalid or of no legal effect * * *.

The applicability of these Guidelines is subject to the limitations on use set forth in § 1608.11.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**CAL HEIDELBERG JR.,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE,** 

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 83 WM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 8th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Le ave to Appeal** 

Nunc Pro Tunc

**is** DENIED

**.**
#### Retan *vs.*Drew.

NBW-YORK,

May, 1838.

A tender of money in satisfaction of a debt, made after the filing of a declaration and entry of a rule to plead is no defence, unless the costs then accrued are offered to be paid, although at the time of the tendera copy of the declaration has not been served.

Demurrer to replication. The declaration was in assumpsit. The defendant pleaded *non-assumpsit*as to the several sums mentioned in the declaration, *except*as to the sum of $52,50, and as to that sum a *tender*made *before the commencement of the suit,*to wit, on the *fourth*day of November, 1835. The plaintiff *replied*that before the tender, to wit, on the *third*day of November, he filed a declaration in the clerk’s office of this court at Geneva, and entered a rule to plead, and on the *fifth*day of November caused a copy of the declaration and a notice of the rule to plead to be served on the defendant; and that the defendant did not before the filing of the declaration and entry of the rule to plead tender the said sum of $52,50, concluding with a verification and prayer of judgment. To which replication the defendant demurred.

/. *A. Spencer,*for defendant.

S'. *Stevens,*for plaintiff.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

Although the action was not, for every purpose, commenced until a copy of the declaration was served on the defendant, *2*R. S. 347, § *1, 15*Wendell, 554, yet the plaintiff had before the *tender*employed an attorney to bring the suit, a declaration had been prepared and filed and a rule entered to plead ; and the plaintiff was proceeding with all diligence to serve the defendant with a copy of the declaration and notice of the rule. The plaintiff had incurred costs which the defendant was liable to pay, and the tender was not sufficient without an offer to pay the costs also. A different rule would work great in*305justice. See 3 Johns. Cas. 145; 2 Johns. R. 342; 17 Wendell, 91.

The pleader, so far as the nature of the case would permit, has followed the approval precedent of a replication where the tender was made after the suing out of process for the commencement of an action, 2 Chitty's P1. 646.

Judgment for plaintiff.
#### CHANCE v. THE STATE.

(Decided January 9, 1917.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Wm. E. Fort.

No counsel marked for appellant.

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

Pelham, J.

No bill of exceptions and no error of record-. Affirmed.
#### § 1690.102 Purpose.

These regulations prescribe the means by which review and consultation shall occur between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other Federal agencies having responsibility for enforcement of Federal statutes, Executive Orders, regulations and policies which require equal employment opportunity without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. Subsequent regulations will expand on standards for the coordination of specific matters referenced or alluded to herein.

[45 FR 68361, Oct. 14, 1980, as amended at 74 FR 63984, Dec. 7, 2009]
[No. 49854-1-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. James David Cole, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for San Juan County, No. 00-1-05042-6, Alan R. Hancock, J., entered January 14, 2002. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### § 102.103 Proceedings before the Board; briefs; advisory opinions.

The Board will thereupon proceed, upon the petition, responses, and submission of briefs, to determine whether, on the facts before it, the commerce operations of the employer involved are such that the Board would or would not assert jurisdiction. Such determination will be in the form of an advisory opinion and will be served on the parties. No briefs may be filed except upon special permission of the Board.

[82 FR 11767, Feb. 24, 2017]
#### § 1602.36 Schools exemption.

The recordkeeping and report-filing requirements of subparts I and J of this part shall not apply to State or local educational institutions or to school districts or school systems or any other educational functions. The previous sentence of this section shall not act to bar jurisdiction which otherwise would attach under § 1602.30.
#### KILBY v ILGEN

Case No. 89-09-AP

Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County

July 24, 1989

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Juliet D. Kilby, appellant, pro se.

Terri Ilgen, appellee, pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MAJOR B. HARDING, Circuit Judge.

The issue in the above-styled cause is whether the trial court properly granted Plaintiff/Appellee a default judgment and writ of possession when Defendant/Appellant has filed for bankruptcy.

Defendant/Appellant filed a Chapter 11 petition in bankruptcy on January 5, 1988. Previously a lease agreement was entered into with Plaintiff/Appellee on December 23, 1987. Plaintiff/Appellee filed a Complaint to Evict Tenant on January 10, 1989, citing Defendant/ Appellant’s failure to pay rent as of October 5, 1988. Defendant/ Appellant filed only a Notice of Bankruptcy in the case. The court *26entered a default judgment and writ of possession on January 25, 1989. Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default was also denied.

The cases cited by Appellant in her brief do not provide a basis for the relief requested. The landlord here filed suit to evict the tenant for failure to past post-petition rent. The automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy code do protect property of the estate. Property of the estate comprises any legal or equitable interest, including possessory interest in a residence. 11 USC § 541(a).

A landlord cannot, therefore, bring suit to evict a tenant, even when the grounds for eviction arise post-petition, without first obtaining relief from the automatic stay. *In re Whitt,*79 Bankr. 611 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987); *In re Boston Business Machines,*87 Bankr. 867 (Bankr E.D. Pa. 1988) . The automatic stay was lifted in the case at hand, however, on October 1, 1988. (Record on Appeal p. 23). Furthermore, the debtor’s request for reinstatement of the stay was denied on October 2, 1988.

The PlaintifF/Appellee’s default judgment and writ of possession were obtained in accordance with bankruptcy law. The suit was brought on January 10, 1989, three months after the automatic stay was lifted. Defendant/Appellant has not stated a valid ground for reversal. The trial court decision should be affirmed.

Default judgment and writ of possession order by the trial court was proper and in accordance with bankruptcy law. Defendant/Appellant has failed to show error in the trial court proceedings.

Therefore, it is

ORDERED

The decision appealed is affirmed.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, this 24th day of July, 1989.
§ 1203.3 Interpretation of mediation agreements. ( a ) Applications may be filed with the Board's Chief of Staff under section 5, Second, of the Railway Labor Act, for the interpretation of agreements reached in mediation under section 5, First. Such applications may be made by letter from either party to the mediation agreement stating the specific question on which an interpretation is desired.
( b ) This function of the National Mediation Board is not intended to conflict with the provisions of section 3 of the Railway Labor Act. Providing for interpretation of agreements by the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Many complete working agreements are revised with the aid of the Board's mediating services, and it has been the Board's policy that disputes involving the interpretation or application of such agreements should be handled by the Adjustment Board. Under this section of the law the Board when called upon may only consider and render an interpretation on the specific terms of an agreement actually signed in mediation, and not for matters incident or corollary thereto.
[11 FR 177A-923, Sept. 11, 1946. Redesignated at 13 FR 8740, Dec. 30, 1948, as amended at 64 FR 40287, July 26, 1999]
#### STATE ex PLANCE v WAYNE CO BD of ED

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Wayne Co

No. 857.

Decided October 17, 1929

Mr. Jospeh O. Fritz, Wooster, for State ex Planee.

Messrs. Weygandt & Ross, Wooster, for Bd of Ed.

WASHBURN, J.

The law in force at the time of the transactions here in question, permitted the township board to provide transportation for said daughter', but provided that—

> “In no case shall such board of education be required to provide, high school transportation except as follows: If the transportation of a child to a high school by a district of a county school district is deemed and declared by the county board of education advisable and practicable, the board of education of the district in which the child ’•esides shall furnish such transportation.” 7749-1 GC.

It is apparent that the matter of transportation was, by law, committed to the sound discretion of said boards of education and that the law does not require such boards to furnish transportation under the circumstances disclosed by the record in this case, and hence the furnishing of transportation was not an act which the law specifically enjoined as a duty upon said boards, and therefore the court could not, by a writ in mandamus, require the furnishing of transportation; the court was fully justified, under the record, in rendering the judgment which was rendered, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Funk, PJ, and Pardee, J, 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 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: February 14, 2006, 
Gary D. Woerz
Chief Financial Officer/s/ Gary D. Woerz
12/2 3/2015

Operator ’ s Name and Address: Sable Park Photography

– 2602 Cochise Trail, Fitchburg Wi, 53711

Petition for Section 333 civil certificate of waiver or Authorization for civil aircraft to perform commercial operations in low

- risk, controlled environments.

The UAV will be flown at altitudes less than 4 00 feet . This exemption will allow Sable Park Photography to phot ograph and film from heights below 4 00 feet without having to erect ladders and other rigging. Using a UAV, will be safer for both clients and photographer , as the chance for toppling ladders or other rigging will be elimi nated.

The UAV will be operated for aerial photography and cinematogr aphy and commercial marketing.

The UAV is a DJI Phantom 3 Pro registration number: FA3RY7EEKF
Docket No. FAA-2012-1036
§ 15.303 How does a Job Corps student file a claim for loss of or damages to personal property under the WIA? ( a ) A WIA claim under this subpart must be in writing and signed by the claimant or by an authorized representative. In order to be a proper claim, a WIA claim must fully describe the property and the circumstances that gave rise to the loss or damage.
( b ) All WIA claims under this subpart must be filed with the appropriate Job Corps Regional Office within 2 years of the date upon which the claim accrued. The Job Corps Regional Office may consult with the Regional Solicitor and/or Counsel for Claims and Compensation as necessary.
( c ) The determination upon the claim shall be provided to the claimant in writing by the appropriate deciding official.
( d ) Reconsideration of a determination under this subpart shall be available upon written request received within 60 days by the appropriate deciding official. The deciding official will provide a written response to the claimant within 60 days of such request. No further review of the matter will be permitted.
Exhibit
4.12

     

    Judicial
Scrivener

     

    Tel.:
3461-2035

     

    3461-2036

     

    Amendment Agreement
of Leaseholder Right

     

    


     

    Both parties have
signed amendment agreement as below in connection with registration of
establishment of leaseholder right that had been registered as No. 103899 at the
Kangnam Registry Office, Seoul Central District Court as of Dec. 6, 2005
pursuant to agreement of establishment of leaseholder right dated Dec. 5, 2005
for the real estate mentioned at the end of this letter.

     

    = Recitals
=

     

    
      
        	
                1.

              	
                Both parties
      agree to change deposit money of the leaseholder’s right
      from  3,319,836,000 won to 4,315,786,800
  won.

              


      

    

     

    
      
        	
                2.

              	
                Duration of
      the leaseholder’s right and refund date of lease deposit shall be Dec. 5,
      2009.

              


      

    

     

    
      
        	
                3.

              	
                Both parties
      agree to change the leaseholder’s right as above and keep other clauses
      the same as the existing agreement of establishment of the leaseholder
      right.

              


      

    

     

     

    In Witness Whereof,
both parties hereto have signed and caused the change agreement to be
executed.

     

    Sept. 10,
2007

     

    


     

    
      	
              Establisher
      of Leaseholder Right

            	
              Kim Eun-ok
      (570405-2469517)    (Seal)
      
                Rm. #4208, E
      Bldg. Tower Palace APT, 467-17, Dogok-dong, Kangnam-gu,
      Seoul

              

            


    

     

    
    

    
      	
              Leaseholder

            	
              WEBZEN Inc.
      (110111-1955694)
      
                467-6,
      Dogok-dong, Kangnam-gu, Seoul
      
                  Kim Nam-ju/
      Representative Director
  (Seal)

                

              

            


    

    


     

    (Indication of Real
Estate)

     

    1 Indication of
Building

     

      Daelim
Acrotel, 467-6, Dogok-dong, Kangnam-gu, Seoul

     

    Indication of
Dedicated Area of the Building

     

    Building No.:
8-801

     

    Structure:
Reinforced Concrete Structure

     

    Area: 809.133m2, Rm. #809, 8th
Fl.
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 June 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
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2



                [SPRAYROQ OF OHIO, INC. LETTERHEAD APPEARS HERE]





                                 July 21, 2003

R. Corbin Washington,
Senior Lending Officer
WESTFIELD COMPANIES
One Park Circle
P.O. Box 5001
Westfield Center, Ohio 44251

         Re:      Satisfaction of Subordinated Indebtedness

Dear Corbin:

         Please allow this letter to acknowledge our understanding that
Westfield Bank, FSB will permit the discounting and prepayment of two (2)
Subordinated Promissory Notes owed to Enviroq Corporation in the original
principal amounts of $150,000 and $173,918.90 for a total sum of $200,000,
notwithstanding anything in that certain Subordination Agreement dated as of
October 30, 2001, by and among Westfield Bank, FSB, Sprayroq of Ohio, Inc.,
Enviroq Corporation and others.

         Kindly acknowledge your agreement to this by executing the enclosed
duplicate of this letter where indicated below. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 330-762-9102.

                                             Sincerely,

                                             SPRAYROQ OF OHIO, INC.

                                             /s/ Mark S. Corr, IV
                                             Mark S. Corr, IV, Vice President

Acknowledged and Agreed to:

Westfield Bank, FSB

By:           /s/ R. Corbin Washington
   -----------------------------------------------
    R. Corbin Washington, Senior Lending Officer
 (Insert "Satisfaction of Subordinated Indebtedness")