alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

----

I Információ

Bizottság

----

Euró átváltási árfolyamok (1)

2004. július 7.

(2004/C 176/01)

1 euró= 

----

(1)

Forrás: Az Európai Központi Bank (ECB) átváltási árfolyama.

----

----

Összefonódás előzetes bejelentése

(Ügyszám COMP/M.3402 – Siemens/3i/AGUTH/XtraMind)

Egyszerűsített eljárás alá vont ügy

(2004/C 176/02)

(EGT vonatkozású szöveg)

----

(1)HL L 395., 1989.12.30., 1. o.; helyesbítés: HL L 257., 1990.9.21., 13. o.

(2)HL L 180., 1997.7.9., 1. o.; helyesbítés: HL L 40., 1998.2.13., 17. o.

(3)HL C 217., 2000.7.29., 32. o.

----

----

A Bizottság közleménye a Tanács 90/385/EGK irányelvének bevezetése tárgykörében

(az EGT-re vonatkozó szöveg)

Az irányelvhez harmonizált szabványok címeinek és hivatkozási számainak közzététele

Példa: Az EN 60601-1:1990-re az alábbiak vonatkoznak:

----

(1)  CEN: rue de Stassart/De Stassartstraat 36, B-1050 Brussels, tel: (32-2) 550 08 11, fax: (32-2) 550 08 19

CENELEC: rue de Stassart/De Stassartstraat 35, B-1050 Brussels, tel: (32-2) 519 68 71, fax: (32-2) 519 69 19

ETSI: BP 152, F-06561 Valbonne Cedex, tel: (33) 492 94 42 12, fax: (33) 493 65 47 16

----

----

Összefonódás előzetes bejelentése

(Ügyszám COMP/M.3508 – Doughty Hanson/Balta)

Egyszerűsített eljárás alá vont ügy

(2004/C 176/04)

(EGT vonatkozású szöveg)

----

(1)HL L 24., 2004.1.29., 1. o.

(2)HL C 217., 2000.7.29., 32. o. A Tanács 4064/89/EGK rendeletét felváltotta a Tanács 1310/97/EK rendelete.

----
[Cuyahoga Circuit Court.]

Hale, Marvin and Caldwell, JJ.

#### North British & M. Ins. Co. v. Cohn.

The decision rendered in this case, and which was among the advance sheets of volume 9, Circuit Decisions, in the Ohio Legal News of June 15, 1899, volume 6, number 21, was suppressed by order of the judges. We have since received some inquires concerning the case and we are now authorized by the court to say that upon further consideration they came to a different conclusion from the one announced in the opinion and that it is not authority and should not have been published. —Ed. Ohio Decisions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                  76
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      1932
<PP&E>                                               62480
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       64412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 4780
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                              9040
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         64412
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        (2353)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (2353)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (2353)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

HORIZON HOLDING CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

The undersigned, Steven Weldon, in his capacities as Chief Financial Officer, of Horizon Holding Corporation do each hereby certify that the Form 10-KSB
of Horizon Holding Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in such
Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Horizon Holding Corporation

This certification is given by the undersigned solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein.

March 31, 2006



/s/ Steven WeldonSteven WeldonChief Financial Officer
[No. 27653-4-II.

Division Two.

October 25, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. David Henry Kelley, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Lewis County, No. 01-1-00265-5, H. John Hall, J., entered June 29, 2001. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished opinion per Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., concurred in by Houghton and Bridgewater, JJ.
Certification Of
                      President and Chief Executive Officer
                                                                            32.1

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, the undersigned, Derek L. Caldwell, who is the
President and Chief Executive Officer of Lincoln International Corporation (the
"company"), hereby certifies that the company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended July 31, 2006, (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of ss.13(a) or ss.15(d) as applicable, of the Securities Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
company.

                                       /s/ Derek L. Caldwell
                                       ---------------------------
                                Name:  Derek L. Caldwell
                                Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
                                Date:  September 21, 2006
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 Col umbia. 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 courtorder 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 ob jections 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
§ 99.15 Position reports. ( a ) The pilot of an aircraft operating in or penetrating an ADIZ under IFR— ( 1 ) In controlled airspace, must make the position reports required in § 91.183; and
( 2 ) In uncontrolled airspace, must make the position reports required in this section.
( b ) No pilot may operate an aircraft penetrating an ADIZ under DVFR unless— ( 1 ) The pilot reports to an appropriate aeronautical facility before penetration: the time, position, and altitude at which the aircraft passed the last reporting point before penetration and the estimated time of arrival over the next appropriate reporting point along the flight route;
( 2 ) If there is no appropriate reporting point along the flight route, the pilot reports at least 15 minutes before penetration: The estimated time, position, and altitude at which the pilot will penetrate; or
( 3 ) If the departure airport is within an ADIZ or so close to the ADIZ boundary that it prevents the pilot from complying with paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) of this section, the pilot must report immediately after departure: the time of departure, the altitude, and the estimated time of arrival over the first reporting point along the flight route.
( c ) In addition to any other reports as ATC may require, no pilot in command of a foreign civil aircraft may enter the United States through an ADIZ unless that pilot makes the reports required in this section or reports the position of the aircraft when it is not less that one hour and not more that 2 hours average direct cruising distance from the United States.
[69 FR 16756, Mar. 30, 2004]
#### SAVAGE v STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellate Case No. 85-10464

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County

January 14, 1987

OPINION OF THE COURT

MANUEL MENENDEZ, JR., Circuit Judge.

Defendant appeals from an order denying his Motion For Discharge under the speedy trial rule Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191. That order is affirmed, because before the expiration of the applicable 90-day period after his arrest, the Defendant moved for and was granted a continuance, thus waiving the benefit of the rule. *State ex rel Butler v. Culler,*253 So.2d 861 (Fla. 1971); *State v. Belden,*379 So.2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

*160Defendant was arrested January 19, 1985 for the felony offense of battery on a law enforcement officer. The defendant was then benefited by virtue of the state attorney’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion whereby the charges were reduced to misdemeanor battery. An information was filed March 12, 1985. Arraignment was held April 9, 1985, at which time the defendant was informed that the applicable speedy trial period would expire April 19, 1985. The defendant then retained counsel who on April 15, 1986 appearing on behalf of the defendant requested a continuance, asking further that such continuance “be charged to the State”. The continuance was granted and the trial set for the week of June 3, 1985. In granting the continuance the trial judge did not indicate whether it was “charging it to the state” as requested by defendant. Neither party objected to the trial court’s action.

In addition to moving for a continuance, the defendant also filed on April 15, 1986, a demand for discovery, and motion for statement of particulars, which were responded to by the State April 19, 1985. Subsequently, on April 29, 1985, the Defendant filed his Motion for Discharge, which was heard by the trial judge May 10, 1985 and ultimately denied May 17, 1985.

Thereafter, defendant filed two additional Motions for Continuance, on May 29, 1985 and June 18, 1985 both of which were granted. On September 11, 1985, the defendant withdrew his previously entered plea of guilty and entered a plea of Nolo Centendre to the Misdemeanor Battery charge, specifically reserving the right to appeal the trial judge’s denial of his Motion for Discharge.

Defendant, since the time of arrest was well aware of the nature of the charges against him. The reduction of these charges from a felony to a misdemeanor benefited rather than prejudiced the defendant. The State’s delay in filing formal charges cannot be said to have prejudiced the defendant in any way. The defendant sought a continuance and was granted one. The fact that in making his request he indicated he did not wish to waive his speedy trial right and that the continuance should be charged to the state, does not alter the fact that it was the defendant who sought the continuance and was granted it with no objection being made when it was granted without any indication to which party it would be “charged.” As such the defendant’s Motion for Discharge was properly dénied, and such denial is hereby Affirmed.

Dated this 14th day of January 1987.
[No. 49743-0-I.

Division One.

December 23, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Rodolfo JerezSosa, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-05142-0, Terence Lukens, J., entered November 19, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
**EXHIBIT 21**SUBSIDIARIES OF LANCE, INC.     Name of Subsidiary State/Province of Incorporation     Lance Mfg. LLC (1)  North Carolina      Caronuts, Inc. (1)  North Carolina      Vista Bakery, Inc. (1)  North Carolina      Cape Cod Potato Chip Company LLC (1)  Massachusetts      Lanhold Investments, Inc. (1)  Delaware      Tamming Foods Ltd. (2)  Ontario      Fresno Ventures, Inc. (1)  North Carolina  (1) Lance, Inc. owns 100% of the outstanding voting equity securities. (2) Subsidiary of Lanhold Investments, Inc., which owns 100% of the outstanding voting equitysecurities.
#### § 1915.1007 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidiene (and its salts).

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1003 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1003).

[[61 FR 31430](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31430), June 20, 1996]
#### § 1405.9 Part-time employment practices.

FMCS will review positions which become vacant for the feasibility of utilizing part-time career appointments. Part-time positions will be advertised in vacancy announcements. Agency employees may request and receive consideration to switch from full-time to part-time schedules. The request should be addressed through the supervisor to the Director of Personnel listing any and all reasons for the request. The Director of Personnel, with input from all affected management officials, will decide whether or not to grant the request. Any employee requesting a change from full-time to part-time employment will be advised of effects on pay and fringe benefits by the Director of Personnel.
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0300 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0300

**2000/300/EC: Commission Decision of 18 April 2000 amending Decision 2000/86/EC laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery products originating in China (notified under document number C(2000) 831) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 097 , 19/04/2000 P. 0015 - 0015 *

Commission Decision

of 18 April 2000

amending Decision 2000/86/EC laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery products originating in China

(notified under document number C(2000) 831)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/300/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products(1), as last amended by Directive 97/79/EC(2), and in particular Article 11 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Pursuant to Commission Decision 2000/86/EC(3), the State Administration for Entry/Exit Inspection and Quarantine (CIQ SA) is the competent authority in China for verifying and certifying compliance of fishery and aquaculture products in accordance with the requirements of Directive 91/493/EEC.

(2) Before the entry into force of Decision 2000/86/EC, imports of fishery products from China were authorised, as a matter of principle, under the conditions provided for in Commission Decision 97/296/EC(4), as last amended by Decision 2000/170/EC(5), from establishments approved by each Member State.

(3) To facilitate the transition to the regime provided by Decision 2000/86/EC, and in order to avoid trade disruption, a limited transitional period should be granted for the import of fishery products certified by the competent Chinese authority no later than 2 February 2000 and arriving in the Community no later than 1 March 2000.

(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

The following Article 4a is inserted in Decision 2000/86/EC:

"Article 4a

Member States may authorise the import of fishery products originating in China and coming from establishments not included in Annex B hereto, subject to the following conditions:

1. the establishments were approved by the importing Member State at 22 December 1999,

2. the health certificate was issued by the competent Chinese authority no later than 2 February 2000, and

3. such fishery products were presented at the Community border inspection post no later than 1 March 2000, and marketed only on the territory of the importing Member State, or other Member States that have approved the establishment of origin."

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 April 2000.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 15.

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

(3) OJ L 26, 2.2.2000, p. 26.

(4) OJ L 122, 14.5.1997, p. 21.

(5) OJ L 55, 29.2.2000, p. 68.
§ 13.53 Referral to Chief Administrative Law Judge; amendment of pleadings. ( a ) Upon receipt of a timely request for a hearing under § 13.51 (where the Administrator has determined that relevant facts are in dispute) or § 13.52 (debarment), the Administrator shall refer the case to the Chief Administrative Law Judge by Order of Reference, to which shall be attached a copy of the investigative findings letter from the Administrator and response thereto, for designation of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct such hearings as may be necessary to decide the disputed matters. A copy of the Order of Reference and attachments thereto shall be served upon the respondent. The investigative findings letter from the Administrator and response thereto shall be given the effect of a complaint and answer, respectively, for purposes of the administrative proceedings.
( b ) At any time prior to the closing of the hearing record, the complaint (investigative findings letter) or answer (response) may be amended with the permission of the Administrative Law Judge and upon such terms as the Administrative Law Judge may approve. For proceedings pursuant to § 13.51, such an amendment may include a statement that debarment action is warranted under § 13.52. Such amendments shall be allowed when justice and the presentation of the merits are served thereby, provided there is no prejudice to the objecting party's presentation on the merits. When issues not raised by the pleadings are reasonably within the scope of the original complaint and are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings, and such amendments may be made as necessary to make them conform to the evidence. The presiding Administrative Law Judge may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit supplemental pleadings setting forth transactions, occurrences, or events that have happened since the date of the pleadings and that are relevant to any of the issues involved. A continuance in the hearing may be granted or the record left open to enable the new allegations to be addressed.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > International Lending Supervision Act of 1983

              														International Lending Supervision Act of 1983, November 30, 1983.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1045,			accessed on September 10, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 868 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the 

Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component 

of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2007 

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 

segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TAUNTON RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS. 

4 Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

5 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating paragraph (167) (relating 

7 to the Musconetcong River, New Jersey) as para8 graph (169); 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 868 IS

1 (2) by designating the undesignated paragraph 

2 relating to the White Salmon River, Washington, as 

3 paragraph (167); 

4 (3) by designating the undesignated paragraph 

5 relating to the Black Butte River, California, as 

6 paragraph (168); and 

7 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(170) TAUNTON RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.— 

9 The segment downstream from the headwaters, from 

10 the confluence of the Town River and the Matfield 

11 River in Bridgewater to the Mount Hope Bay in the 

12 city of Fall River, Massachusetts.’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### § 1922.5 Notice of investigational hearings.

The Chairman of the Board shall give reasonable notice of the time and place of any investigational hearing to any person whose conduct is or may be pertinent to the subjects of investigation; to any prospective witnesses; and to any Federal or State agency engaged in similar investigative work.