alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31999R0964 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R0964

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 964/1999 of 6 May 1999 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature **

*
Official Journal L 119 , 07/05/1999 P. 0028 - 0029 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 964/1999

of 6 May 1999

concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87(1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 861/1999(2), and in particular Article 9,

Whereas in order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to the said Regulation, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation;

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has set down the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature and those rules also apply to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific Community provisions, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods;

Whereas, pursuant to the said General Rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table annexed to the present Regulation must be classified unter the appropriate CN codes indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3;

Whereas it is acceptance that binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature and which do not conform to the rights established by this Regulation, can continue to be invoked, under the provisions in Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(3), for a period of three months by the holder;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature Section of the Customs Code Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The goods described in column 1 of the annexed table are now classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the appropriate CN codes indicated in column 2 of the said table.

Article 2

Binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States which do not conform to the rights established by this Regulation can continue to be invoked under the provisions of Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 for a period of three months.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 21st day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 6 May 1999.

For the Commission

Mario MONTI

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 108, 27.4.1999, p. 11.

(3) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.

ANNEX

>TABLE>
§ 16.202 Net worth exhibit. ( a ) Each applicant except a qualified tax-exempt organization or cooperative association must provide with its application a detailed exhibit showing the net worth of the applicant and any affiliates (as defined in § 16.105(f) of this part) as of the date when the proceeding was initiated, i.e. the date the complaint was filed. The exhibit may be in any form convenient to the applicant that provides full disclosure of the applicant's and its affiliates' assets and liabilities and is sufficient to determine whether the applicant qualifies under the standards in this part. The adjudicative officer may require an applicant to file additional information to determine its eligibility for an award.
( b ) The net worth exhibit shall be included in the public record of the proceeding in which an award is sought.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1225-0013) [46 FR 63021, Dec. 29, 1981, as amended at 47 FR 14696, Apr. 6, 1982]
Jose Gilberto Pena, Et /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 16, 2014

No. 04-14-00048-CV

America Amada GONZALEZ and Jamie Christina Garza McRae,

Appellants

v.

Jose Gilberto PENA, Et Ux.,

Appellees

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-10-359

Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee's motion to exclude defendant's exhibit 5 is hereby CARRIED WITH THE 

APPEAL.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program : Tier 1 Screening Battery (T1S) Assay Performance

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

# Assay Performance

 

## Presentations

• In vitro Assays: Gregory Akerman

• In vivo Mammalian Assays: John Liccione

• Fish Short Term Reproduction Assay: Amy Blankinship

• Amphibian Metamorphosis Assay: Catherine Aubee

2

# Assay Performance

 

# Goals of Analysis

• Evaluate how well each Tier 1 assays can be executed based on defined performance criteria

• Highlight any issues associated with interpretation of responses within each assay

3

# Selection of Case Studies

 

### 21 test chemicals selected

 Represents:

• 

### chemical space of the 52 pesticide actives available for consideration

• 

### broad range of physical

- chemical properties e.g., water solubility, octanol

- water partition coefficient ( K ow 

### ), and volatility

• 

### range of chemical classes ( e.g ., organophosphates, imides, azoles) and pesticidal activities ( e.g ., fungicides, herbicides, insecticides ).

 Number of case study chemicals evaluated for each assay differs since some assays were previously satisfied by “Other Scientifically Relevant Information” (OSRI)

• 

### OSRI = existing data used to satisfy test guideline requirements

4Assay Performance Assay Type Number of Case Studies Evaluated **In Vitro** Estrogen Receptor Binding 18 Estrogen Receptor Transcriptional Activation 19 Androgen Receptor 17 Steroidogenesis 18 Aromatase 18 **In Vivo** Uterotrophic 17 Hershberger 17 Pubertal Female 17 Pubertal Male 16 Fish Short

- Term Reproduction 21 Amphibian Metamorphosis 18 

### Number of Chemicals Included in Assay Performance Analysis

5

# Data Review Process

 Set of standard evaluation procedures (SEPs ) for review of data submitted in response to the test orders for the EDSP Tier 1 assays

 SEPs used in conjunction with the appropriate EDSP Test Guideline

 Data Evaluation Record ( DER) prepared for each submitted assay that reflects how well the assay conforms to the Series 890 EDSP Test Guidelines and documents basic information on materials , methods and results of the study

 Multi

- tiered approach to reviewing data submissions

• Primary review by Agency/contract scientist to develop DER

• Secondary review of DER by Agency scientist trained to review test guideline study and is experienced in reviewing data for the specific test chemical

• Interdisciplinary committee review

• Evaluates each assay concurrently to ensure consistency in interpretation

6

# Notes

 

### Performance Criteria:

 Purpose: to provide confidence that a study is scientifically sound

• 

### Reference or control chemicals, where applicable

• 

### Study parameters/conditions

 

### Overt Toxicity:

• Observed in some of the In vivo studies

7
| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      May      20, 2009                               |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                       |
| /s/ Alton L. Boynton                                       |
| Alton      L. Boynton                                      |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                 |
| (Principal      Executive Financial and AccountingOfficer) |

----
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: ( a ) *Anywhere.* An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
( b ) *Over congested areas.* Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
( c ) *Over other than congested areas.* An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
( d ) *Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft.* If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface— ( 1 ) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
( 2 ) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-311, 75 FR 5223, Feb. 1, 2010]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00407-CR

Robert Morrison, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 9020022, HONORABLE DON B. MORGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Robert Morrison guilty of failing to appear in accordance with the 

terms of his bail, for which it assessed a punishment of seven years= imprisonment. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. '

38.10 (West 1994). His court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and 

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be 

advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 

553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of 

counsel=s brief was delivered to Morrison, who was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and 

to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
2

We have reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and 

without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: March 13, 2003

Do Not Publish
#### § 1691.1 Purpose and application.

The purpose of this regulation is to implement procedures for processing and resolving complaints of employment discrimination filed against recipients of Federal financial assistance subject to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, as amended, and provisions similar to title VI and title IX in Federal grant statutes. Enforcement of such provisions in Federal grant statutes is covered by this regulation to the extent they relate to prohibiting employment discrimination on the ground of race, color, national origin, religion or sex in programs receiving Federal financial assistance of the type subject to title VI or title IX. This regulation does not, however, apply to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, as amended, the Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973, as amended, or Executive Order 11246.
§ ̈¦15 

§ ̈¦15 

AAl bbeerrtta a Glacier

National Park 

l

SSaass kka att cchheewwaann

GLACIER 

Browning 

Blackfeet Indian

Reservation
 

£¤89

Cut Bank TOOLE
 

Shelby Chester 

232 

LIBERTY HILL 

2 

")

£¤

BLAINE
 

Chinook 

CHOUTEAU
 

66 £¤191

PHILLIPS

Fort Benton 

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

")

£¤87 Ind

Havre 

Malta 

Ft. Belknap

Indian Reservation Rocky Boy's

ian Reservation 

VALLEY
 

Glasgow 

Map 2.12 

AAl bbeerrtta a Glacier 

l

National Park SSaass kka att cchheewwaann

GLACIER 

Blackfeet Indi

Reservation 

Browning 

an 

£¤89

Alternative A

(Current Mangament) 

1:1,750,000 0 25 50 

Miles 

Alternative E

(Preferred)
 

Cut Bank 

Shelby 

TOOLE
 

")232

HILL LIBERTY 

£¤2

BLAINE
 

Chinook 

Chester Havre 

CHOUTEAU
 

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. 

") £¤

£¤87 

66 

191 

Fort Benton 

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

Ind

Ft. Belknap Malta VALLEY Indian Reservation

Rocky Boy's

ian Reservation 

Glasgow 

PHILLIPS
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

HiLine District 

Leasable Solid Minerals

Alternatives A & E 

Map shows Leasable Mineral

Estate and the areas that are closed

to development under Alternatives

A & E. 

¬ 

Closed To Leasable 

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

Leasable Mineral Estate 

Not Analyzed

RMP boundary

County Line

Canada 

Interstate 

Highway or State Route 

Towns
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 94 (Monday, May 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12173]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Meeting

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Security 
Advisory Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 1, 2000, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 10th floor, MacCracken 
Room, Washington, DC. 20591, telephone 202-267-7622.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 11), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee 
to be held June 1, at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., 10th floor, MacCracken Room, Washington, DC. 
The agenda for the meeting will include: State Fire Codes and the 
Impact in the Implementation of 14 CFR 107.14 Nationwide, Airport 
Construction Guidelines, Expansion of the List of Disqualifying Crimes 
in 14 CFR 108.33 and 107.31, Current Access Control Practices and 
Procedures, Screening of Persons with Disabilities, Status of Work 
Groups, and Security Initiatives. The June 1 meeting is open to the 
public but attendance is limited to space available. Members of the 
public may address the committee only with the written permission of 
the chair, which should be arranged in advance. The chair may entertain 
public comment if, in its judgment, doing so will not disrupt the 
orderly progress of the meeting and will not be unfair to any other 
person. Members of the public are welcome to present written material 
to the committee at any time. Persons wishing to present statements or 
obtain information should contact the Office of the Associate 
Administrator for Civil Aviation Security, 800 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone 202-267-7622.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 9, 2000.
William S. Davis,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Civil Aviation Security.
[FR Doc. 00-12173 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Independent Accountant's Report

To Deutsche Financial Services Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion about Deutsche Financial
Services Corporation's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
relating to RV Trust 1999-1, Marine Trust 1999-2, and RV
Trust 1999-3 as of and for the period ended December 31, 2000
included in the accompanying management assertion.  Management is
responsible for Deutsche Financial Services Corporation's
compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence
about Deutsche Financial Services Corporation's compliance with
the minimum servicing standards and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We
believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination
on Deutsche Financial Services Corporation's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Deutsche Financial
Services Corporation complied with the aforementioned minimum
Servicing standards as of and for the period ended December
31, 2000 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

By:    KPMG LLP
       10 South Broadway - Suite 900
       St. Louis, MO 63102-1761

Date:  February 9, 2001
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6582

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN VALENTIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

New Bern. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00114-D-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2020 Decided: November 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Valentin, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Valentin appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence 

reduction under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act”), Pub. L. No. 

115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Although the court found Valentin eligible for relief, the court 

exercised its discretion not to reduce his sentence. In so doing, the court accurately 

described the record; considered Valentin’s new Sentencing Guidelines range, the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and Valentin’s arguments for a reduction; and explained its 

reasons for denying the motion. We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in denying Valentin’s motion, and we affirm the court’s judgment. See 

United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497 (4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing decision on First 

Step Act motion for abuse of discretion). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

American International Contractors, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912ER-14-C-0002 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 60948, 61166 

Scott M. Heimberg, Esq. 

Mark J. Groff, Esq. 

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 

Washington, DC 

Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Rebecca L. Bockmann, Esq. 

Sarah L. Hinkle, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East 

Winchester, VA 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O'CONNELL 

On May 29, 2018, the Board denied appellant's motion for summary judgment 

and granted the government's cross-motion for summary judgment except with respect 

to: 1) the liquidated damages withheld from May 19-28, 2015, for which we found 

there was a material dispute of fact as to whether appellant had completed the work: 

and 2) the correct calculation of liquidated damages that should be released to 

appellant based on the contracting officer's final decision. On October 29, 2018, the 

Board denied appellant's motion for reconsideration. 

Appellant advised the Board by letter dated November 8, 2018, that it "no 

longer disputed the amount of liquidated damages withheld by the government as 

calculated in the Contracting Officer's final decision, including the amounts held from 

May 19-28, 2015, but only the government's right to withhold those damages." The 

Board had resolved this latter issue in its opinion on the cross-motions for summary 

judgment. Thus, appellant requested "that the Board enter final judgment in the 

government's favor on the entire case, as there are no remaining open issues in this 

matter" so that it can exercise its appellate rights. The government informed the Board 
by letter dated November 21, 2018, that it has no objection to appellant withdrawing 

the unresolved portion of the appeals. 

Accordingly, these appeals are denied. 

Dated: December 4, 2018 

I concur 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

'1~1.J4)1J.c·G~~ MICHAEL N:-O'CONNELL 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

OWEN C. WILSON 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 60948, 61166, Appeals of 

American International Contractors, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's 

Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals