alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0590 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0590

**98/590/EC: Commission Decision of 13 October 1998 concerning an extension of the maximum period foreseen for the notification of slaughter of bovine animals to the national Swedish database (notified under document number C(1998) 2865) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 283 , 21/10/1998 P. 0025 - 0025 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 13 October 1998 concerning an extension of the maximum period foreseen for the notification of slaughter of bovine animals to the national Swedish database (notified under document number C(1998) 2865) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/590/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (1), and in particular the second indent of Article 7(1) thereof,

Having regard to the request submitted by Sweden,

Whereas Sweden has requested an extension to six weeks of the maximum period laid down, for notification of slaughter from slaughterhouses to its national database, due to specific practical difficulties;

Whereas it is justified to take account of Sweden's request for an interim period, provided that the extension of the maximum period for notification does not affect the quality of information provided by the Swedish database;

Whereas the present Decision should be without prejudice to the decisions to be adopted regarding the fully operational character of the national databases;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Sweden may, until 1 January 2000, extend to six weeks the maximum period laid down by the second indent of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 820/97 for notification of slaughter of bovine animals from slaughterhouses to the national database.

This extension shall not affect the quality of information provided by the Swedish database.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 October 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 117, 7. 5. 1997, p. 1.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Declaration of Disaster #3253]

                    Los Angeles County and the contiguous counties of Kern, Orange, San Bernardino, and Ventura in the State of California constitute a disaster area as a result of severe storms that occurred on April 18, 2000. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on July 10, 2000 and for economic injury until the close of business on February 9, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster                           ( print page 32141)                        Area 4 Office, P.O. Box 13795, Sacramento, CA 95853-4795.                 

The interest rates are: 

### For Physical Damage 

Homeowners with credit available elsewhere: 7.625% 

Homeowners without credit available elsewhere: 3.812% 

Businesses with credit available elsewhere: 8.000% 

Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere: 4.000% 

Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit available elsewhere: 6.750% 

### For Economic Injury 

Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere: 4.000% 

The numbers assigned to this disaster are 325311 for physical damage and 9H3200 for economic injury.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008)

Dated: May 9, 2000. 

Kris Swedin, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 00-12692 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2138

RUFUS SUTTLES, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-93-1856-3-23-BC)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rufus Suttles, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Lamar Paxton, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Atlanta, Georgia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order affirming the

denial of social security benefits. Appellant's case was referred

to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994).

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Appellant that failure to file specific, timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant filed, at best, only general objections to the magistrate

judge's recommendation. Such general, non-specific objections are

not sufficient. See Howard v. Secretary, 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th

Cir. 1991); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1985).

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright

v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate

review by failing to file specific objections after receiving

proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Cause No. 05-14-01618-CV 

Henry S. Miller Brokerage, LLC 

Appellant (Plaintiff below) 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Court of Appeals 

vs. 5rn District of Texas 

Ruth Mae Sanders § 

Appellee (Defendant below) § Dallas, Texas 

APPELLANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION TO FILE BRIEF 

1. Appellant's brief is due today, Thursday, January 291

• 

2. Appellant seeks a four-day extension to Monday, February 2. 

3. The undersigned Jamie Wall is the attorney responsible for preparing Appellant's 

brief. On Friday, January 23, Wall was retained as new counsel for a party in a pending lawsuit in 

which depositions were scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, January 26 and 27. Case study, 

preparation, and attendance at the depositions consumed much of the weekend and all of January 26-

27, which unexpectedly delayed Wall's commencement of Appellant's brief. Thereafter and during 

the course of preparing the brief, Wall determined that additional legal research and analysis was 

necessary, which further retarded progress on the brief. 

4. The brief is underway, but will not be finished and ready to file by today's deadline. 

Out of an abundance of caution, Appellant seeks to extend the deadline to Monday, February 2. 

5. No previous extensions to file the brief have been granted 

or requested. 

6. Certificate of Conference: Appellee 's counsel is Douglas C, Kittelson. In response to 

Wall's telephone voice message this afternoon to confer about this motion, Kittelson sent Wall a text 

message expressing his non-opposition to the extension. See Exhibit A (copy of text message). 

Appellant's Unopposed Motion for Extension to File Brief Page 1 \ 1 All dates referenced in this motion are in 2015 unless otherwise stated 

ACCEPTED

05-14-01618-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

1/29/2015 6:24:04 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 1/29/2015 6:24:04 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
Wherefore, Appellant prays for an extension to Monday, February 2, 2015 to file Appellant's 

brief. 

Certificate of Service: On January 29, 2015, a true copy of this instrument was e-served on 

Appellee's counsel through the Texas online filing system. 

Appellant's Unopposed Motion for Extension to File Brief 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Jamie Wall 

Jamie Wall 

Attorney at Law 

State Bar No. 20756700 

9551 Milltrail Drive 

Dallas, Texas 75238 

Telephone: 214-675-5534 

jwall@sanijet.com 

ACKERMAN & SAVAGE 

Attorneys and Counselors 

8226 Douglas Ave., Suite 330 

Dallas, TX 75225 

214-346-4200 (Telephone) 

214-346-4201 (Facsimile) 

W.RANDALLACKERMAN 

State Bar No. 00832475 

STEVEN T. RAMOS 

State Bar No. 00784812 

cyh(ij),ackennansavage.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 

Page2 
•••oo AT&T~ 3:44 PM v ~ * 55% ;a l• 

( dougkittelson@icloud.c... Contact 

iMessage 

Today 1 :50 PM 

Monday is fine for an 

extension to fUe your brief 

Thanks. I'll so represent In 

certificate of conference 

Delivered 

EXHIBIT 

... I 

-/i •' ·~, , - \ ', ( ' ' ' , ,,,., 

""" Send 3 ~----~--------·----~----------------
#### BAYLESS v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 85-038 AC

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

October 8, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Samuel E. Smith for appellant.

Jim Smith, Attorney General, and Julie S. Thornton, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before TENDRICH, FEDER, GREENBAUM, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MOIE J. L. TENDRICH, Judge.

During oral argument, while attorneys for both the Appellant and the Appellee were present, the Appellant withdrew his appeal because the matter being appealed is not dispositive of the case. Therefore, in *128accordance with the procedure set forth in *Gray v. State,*379 So.2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), Appellant is granted leave to file in the lower court his motion to withdraw the plea of nolo contendere within 30 days from the date of this Order.

Appeal is dismissed without prejudice with leave to file motion with the lower court.

FEDER and GREENBAUM, JJ., concur.
§ 22.7 Complaint. ( a ) On or after the date the Department of Justice approves the issuance of a complaint in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3803(b)(1), the reviewing official may serve a complaint on the defendant, as provided in § 22.8.
( b ) The complaint shall state— ( 1 ) The allegations of liability against the defendant, including the statutory basis for liability, an identification of the claims or statements that are the basis for the alleged liability, and the reasons why liability allegedly arises from such claims or statements;
( 2 ) The maximum amount of penalties and assessments for which the defendant may be held liable;
( 3 ) Instructions for filing an answer to request a hearing, including a specific statement of the defendant's right to request a hearing by filing an answer and to be represented by a representative; and
( 4 ) That failure to file an answer within 30 days of service of the complaint will result in the imposition of the maximum amount of penalties and assessments without right to appeal, as provided in § 22.10.
( c ) At the same time the reviewing official serves the complaint, he or she shall serve the defendant with a copy of these regulations.
#### § 2203.6 Certification by the General Counsel.

For every meeting closed under any provision of these rules, the General Counsel will be asked to certify before the meeting that in his opinion the meeting may properly be closed to the public, and to state which exemptions he has relied upon. A copy of this certification, together with a statement (from the Commissioner presiding over the meeting) setting forth the time and place of the meeting and the persons present, shall be retained by the Commission as part of the transcript, recording or minutes of the meeting described in § 2203.7.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 862 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 862

 To designate the Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street in Des 
         Moines, Iowa, as the ``Neal Smith Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 2007

  Mr. Harkin (for himself and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street in Des 
         Moines, Iowa, as the ``Neal Smith Federal Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street in Des Moines, 
Iowa, shall be known and designated as the ``Neal Smith Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Neal Smith Federal 
Building''.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 32000R1713 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R1713

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1713/2000 of 1 August 2000 fixing the minimum selling prices for beef put up for sale under the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1596/2000 **

*
Official Journal L 196 , 02/08/2000 P. 0003 - 0004 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1713/2000

of 1 August 2000

fixing the minimum selling prices for beef put up for sale under the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1596/2000

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal(1), and in particular Article 28(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Tenders have been invited for certain quantities of beef fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1596/2000(2).

(2) Pursuant to Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2417/95(4), the minimum selling prices for meat put up for sale by tender should be fixed, taking into account tenders submitted.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The minimum selling prices for beef for the invitation to tender held in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1596/2000 for which the time limit for the submission of tenders was 25 July 2000 are as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 August 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 1 August 2000.

For the Commission

Pedro Solbes Mira

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 182, 21.7.2000, p. 12.

(3) OJ L 251, 5.10.1979, p. 12.

(4) OJ L 245, 14.10.1995, p. 39.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

>TABLE>
#### Tom vs. The first Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Riga.

ALBANY,

Sept. 1837.

In a suit against the corporation, where there is no presiding officer, cashier, secretary or treasurer, service of the summons upon *any oilier officer*of the corporation will be approved by the court, and a rule to plead ordered to be entered.

Suit against corporation. The suit was commenced by the service of a summons, upon one of the *trustees*of the church. On an affidavit that the corporation had no presiding officer or treasurer, and that the secretary had left the country, The Court directed a rule to be entered that the service made should be deemed sufficient, and that the defendants plead within twenty days after the service upon the same trustee, of a copy of the declaration filed, and notice of the rule so ordered or judgment. See 2 R. S. 458, § 5.
Exhibit 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-4 (File No.
333-35955) of our report dated March 5, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statement and financial statement schedule of Keystone Consolidated
Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for the
years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996, which report is included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.




Dallas, Texas
March 26, 1999
EPA R eg . N o

. 38083

- 1
#### § 1641.8 Definitions.

As used in this part, the term:

*ADA* refers to title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 *et seq.*).

*Affirmative action requirements* refers to affirmative action requirements required by DOL pursuant to section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that go beyond the nondiscrimination requirements imposed by the ADA.

*Chairman of the EEOC* refers to the Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or his or her designee.

*Complaint/Charge* means a section 503 complaint/ADA charge. The terms are used interchangeably.

*Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs* refers to that individual or his or her designee.

*DOL* means the U.S. Department of Labor, and where appropriate, any of its headquarters or regional offices.

*EEOC* means the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and where appropriate, any of its headquarters, district, area, local, or field offices.

*Government* means the government of the United States of America.

*Priority List* refers to a document listing a limited number of controversial topics under the ADA on which there is not yet definitive guidance setting forth EEOC's position. The Priority List will be jointly developed and periodically reviewed by EEOC and DOL. Any policy documents involving Priority List issues will be coordinated between DOL and EEOC pursuant to Executive Order 12067 (3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 206) prior to final approval by EEOC.

*OFCCP* means the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and where appropriate, any of its regional or district offices.

*Section 503* refers to section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 793).

*Section 503 complaint/ADA charge* refers to a complaint that has been filed with OFCCP under section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, and has been deemed to be simultaneously dual filed with EEOC under the ADA.
# s1

s2 

# SAFETY EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE **FOR NEAR EARTH FLIGHT**

s1 is a fully-integrated, turnkey survey system that produces photorealistic 3D imagery of large regions
. s1 includes a ground station for specification of flight plans. All range data and video imagery are collected onboard for post-processing. s1 is designed to be used with minimal training and a small flight crew for flight beyond line-of-sight. **Features & Benefits** • One hour operation with < 10 minute turnaround between

mission segments • Flying speeds up to 30 knots • High accuracy (cm-level) survey-grade laser ranging with 1 km range • Very large scanner field-of-view (330 deg) • Large suite of post-processing tools enable high-fidelity

3D maps • Lower accuracy sensor suites available for lower cost

mapping options • Collision avoidance upgrade coming in 2016 for beyond

line-of-sight operations 

# s1 turnkey survey system

Media inquiries: media@nearearth.aero All Rights Reserved © 2015 Near Earth Autonomy, Inc.www.nearearth.aero All Rights Reserved © 2015 Near Earth Autonomy, Inc. 

### How to Purchase Please contact us for any questions about specifications, cost, and delivery. email: sales@nearearth.aero or call: (412) 621-4300 

# s1 turnkey survey system

s1 is a complete turnkey survey system with a high-performance laser scanner, IMU, and color camera. Range data and color images are position- and time-stamped enabling point cloud registration and photorealistic three-dimensional maps.

Collision avoidance available 2016 * Dependent upon laser pulse repetition rate and target reflectance. 

### 77.32”

57.0”

Ø16.75” 45.5” 32.6”22.95”19.2”


### Ø13.2”

**Application** Survey-grade lidar-based mapping **Max speed** 30 knots **Flight duration** 1 hour **Sensing package** Riegl VUX-1, 5 MP Color Camera **Post-processed position, velocity, and altitude**  Position: < 0.05 m, velocity: 0.010 m/s, roll & pitch: 0.015 deg, heading: 0.035 deg **Laser range measurement rate/ Max range/Accuracy/FOV**  500,000 points/s / 170 - 920 m* / 10 mm / 330 deg **Sense & avoid availability** 2016 **Onboard computing** Dual core, i5 processor, 2.5 GHz **Wireless radio link range** 5 km **Weight (lb.)** 55

140 120 100

80 60 40 20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 80 m 100 m 120 m 150 m 200 m **RANGE TO TARGET** Point Density (points/m2)

Speed (knots) **330° FIELD OF VIEW**
#### Maud D. Lahr, Respondent, *v.*Mabel C. Tirrill, Appellant. John B. Lahr, Respondent, *v.*Mabel C. Tirrill, Appellant.

Submitted June 1, 1937;

decided June 8, 1937.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 274 N. Y. 112.)
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July

18 , 2013

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00563

- CV

IN RE PHILIPPE RENE NOTTEBOHM MAGANA AND MERCATIL

MURCIA S.A. DE C.V , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS Probate Court No. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 405,973

- 401



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On June 28, 2013, relator s Philippe Rene Nottebohm Magana and Mercatil Murcia S.A. DE C.V filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s ask
this c ourt to compel the Honorable Christine Butts, presiding judge of the Probate2

Court No 4 of Harris C ounty to grant th e ir motion for new trial because the court reporter who prepared the record of proceedings below was not certified at the
time

. Mandamus relief is available when the trial court abuses its discretion and there is no adequa te remedy at law, such as by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co.
, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004). Denial of a motion for new trial can be raised on appeal from final judgment , and relators already have such an appeal pending in this Court . Consequentl y, they have an adequate remedy at law. The case may be abated to give the successor court reporter an opportunity to certify
the record.

Relator s ha ve not established entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny re lators ’ petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Busby.