alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31999R0624 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R0624

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 624/1999 of 23 March 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1713/93 establishing special detailed rules for applying the agricultural conversion rate in the sugar sector **

*
Official Journal L 078 , 24/03/1999 P. 0009 - 0010 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 624/1999 of 23 March 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1713/93 establishing special detailed rules for applying the agricultural conversion rate in the sugar sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1148/98 (2), and in particular Articles 8(5), 9(6) and 36(6) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro (3), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 establishes new agrimonetary arrangements as a result of the introduction of the euro; whereas the resulting application of certain operative events adopted by Regulation (EEC) No 1713/93 of 30 June 1993 establishing special detailed rules for applying the agricultural conversion rate in the sugar sector (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 59/97 (5), has become unnecessarily complex because of the daily amendment of the exchange rates of non-participating Member States; whereas the application of the operative events should be simplified to permit the efficient administration of the system and compliance with the criteria set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2799/98;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1713/93 is amended as follows:

1. Point V is replaced by the following:

>TABLE>

2. Point VIII is replaced by the following:

>TABLE>

3. Point X is replaced by the following:

>TABLE>

Article 2

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

Points 1 and 2 of Article 1 shall apply from 1 January 1999. Point 3 of Article 1 shall apply from 1 March 1999.

However, at the request of interested parties, the provisions replaced by this Regulation shall apply to all operations carried out between the dates of application and the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

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

Done at Brussels, 23 March 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 177, 1. 7. 1981, p. 4.

(2) OJ L 159, 3. 6. 1998, p. 38.

(3) OJ L 349, 24. 12. 1998, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 159, 1. 7. 1993, p. 94.

(5) OJ L 14, 17. 1. 1997, p. 25.
#### § 1626.9 Referral to and from State agencies; referral States.

The Commission may refer all charges to any appropriate State agency and will encourage State agencies to refer charges to the Commission in order to assure that the prerequisites for private law suits, as set out in section 14(b) of the Act, are met. Charges so referred shall be deemed to have been filed with the Commission in accordance with the specifications contained in § 1626.7(b). The Commission may process any charge at any time, notwithstanding provisions for referral to and from appropriate State agencies.

[48 FR 140, Jan. 3, 1983, as amended at 68 FR 70152, Dec. 17, 2003]
EXHIBIT 99.4

                 Master Servicer's Sarbanes-Oxley Certification
                       (1998 Transactions - 2001 Reports)

                   BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.,
                       MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
                      SERIES SET FORTH ON EXHIBIT I HERETO

            I, Gary K. Bettin, a Senior Vice President of Bank of America, N.A.,
certify that:

1.    I have reviewed the annual reports on Form 10-K for the calendar year 2001
      and all reports on Form 8-K containing the statements to
      certificateholders set forth in Section 4.03(b) of the Pooling and
      Servicing Agreements listed on Exhibit I hereto (the "Distribution Date
      Statements") filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by
      such annual reports of the trusts (each, a "Trust") formed pursuant to
      such Pooling and Servicing Agreements;

2.    Based on my knowledge, with respect to each Trust, the information in
      these reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by such
      annual report; and

3.    Based on my knowledge, the servicing information required to be provided
      to the trustee by each master servicer under each Pooling and Servicing
      Agreement for inclusion in the related Trust's Distribution Date
      Statements is included in these reports.


                                        BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
                                           as Master Servicer

                                        By:/s/ Gary K. Bettin
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Gary K. Bettin
                                           Title: Senior Vice President

<PAGE>

         PARTIES TO AGREEMENT              DATE OF AGREEMENT        SERIES
================================================================================

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    April 1, 1998               1998-1
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
of California

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    May 1, 1998                 1998-2
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
of California

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    June 1, 1998                1998-3
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and The
Bank of New York

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    July 1, 1998                1998-4
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and The
Bank of New York

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    September 1, 1998           1998-5
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and The
Bank of New York

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    November 1, 1998            1998-6
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and The
Bank of New York

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    December 1, 1998            1998-7
Inc., Bank of America, N.A., BA
Mortgage, LLC and The Bank of New York
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Mary M. Kneeskern, as Administratrix of the Estate of Maggie K. Smith, Deceased. Ollie Kneeskern, as Executrix of Mary M. Kneeskern, Deceased, etc., Appellant; Fred S. Lathers et al., as Administrators with the Will Annexed of the Estate of Jonas S. Smith, Deceased, Respondent.

Submitted May 24, 1937;

decided June 2, 1937.

*Edward R. Hall*for motion.

*T. Cwthell Calderwood*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements, and appeal dismissed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.

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


In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of NORD OIL  INTERNATIONAL,  INC.(the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended March 31, 2006,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Gerald T. Parkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2001, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated:  May 24, 2006.


        /s/ Gerald T. Parkin
        ---------------------------------
        Gerald T. Parkin
        Chief Executive Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-81,530-01

EX PARTE DARIUS SMITH, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1388262-A IN THE 209 DISTRICT COURT th

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of

cocaine in an amount of one to four grams and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. He did not

appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends that newly discovered evidence in this case only supports a conviction

for the lesser included offense of possession of cocaine in an amount of less than one gram. 

Applicant’s claim is supported by the habeas record. Applicant is entitled to relief. State v.
2

Wilson, 324 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). 

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 1388262-A in the 209 District Court of Harris th

County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Harris County to

answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench

warrant within 10 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: September 17, 2014

Do not publish
#### § 18.612 Writing used to refresh memory.

If a witness uses a writing to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying, either while testifying, or before testifying if the judge in the judge's discretion determines it is necessary in the interest of justice, an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony the judge shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portion not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objections shall be preserved and made available in the event of review. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this rule, the judge shall make any order justice requires.
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0444 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0444

**2000/444/EC: Commission Decision of 5 July 2000 amending Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries (notified under document number C(2000) 1803) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 179 , 18/07/2000 P. 0015 - 0022 *

Commission Decision

of 5 July 2000

amending Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries

(notified under document number C(2000) 1803)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/444/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992, laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subjected to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 95/176/EC(2), and in particular Articles 17(3)(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2000/284/EC(3) established the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries.

(2) The competent authorities of Argentina, Canada and the United States of America officially informed the Commission of the approval in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC of respectively one, six and 10 additional equine semen collection centres. In addition the Canadian authorities corrected certain details of the three collection centres included in the Annex to Decision 2000/284/EC.

(3) It is appropriate to amend the list in the light of new information received from the third countries concerned, and to highlight the amendments in the Annex for clarity.

(4) Whereas 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 Annex to Decision 2000/284/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 July 2000.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 54.

(2) OJ L 117, 24.5.1995, p. 23.

(3) OJ L 94, 14.4.2000, p. 35.

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

>TABLE>
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v MARSHALL

Case No. 88-41-AP

Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County

August 1, 1989

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Eddie L. Carson, for appellant.

David M. Robbins, for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT

DOROTHY H. PATE, Circuit Judge.

The State appeals the Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the results of field sobriety tests and chemical-breath tests and certifying the following questions to the First District Court of Appeal:

> “Is the odor of alcohol, without other evidence of impairment, sufficient to require a driver to submit to a field test or must the police officer first have probable cause to suspect the driver has committed the offense of DUI?” Jurisdiction was transferred to this Court on May 19, 1988.

*35The Court has reviewed the briefs, the argument of counsel and the Record on Appeal and affirms the lower court.

The First District Court of Appeals has held that the State must establish probable cause to order a blood test to determine whether a Defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages. *Jackson v State,*456 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

The only Florida case addressing the need for probable cause before administering field sobriety tests is *Jones v State,*459 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), *aff'd.,*483 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1986). In *Jones*the issue was the constitutionality of roadblocks maintained to stop motorists to ascertain and apprehend those to be driving while under the influence of alcohol. The Court said:

> “ ... if a roadblock is established in a constitutionally permissible way, arrests of individual motorists ensuing therefrom should nonetheless be based upon probable cause. Only if an officer, based upon his observations following a proper stop of a vehicle, has probable cause to believe that the driver is DUI could the officer conduct a more extensive investigation, such as asking the motorist to exist the car for a roadside sobriety test.” The State urges that the *Jones*Court requires probable cause for the arrest not the field tests. (State’s Brief, page 7) but that Court clearly has stated that probable cause to believe the driver to be DUI is required to conduct further investigation such as field tests after a proper stop. *Id.*at 1080.

The only other authorities cited are from out of state and support the decision in this case. *State v Johnson,*215 Neb. 319, 338 N.W. 2d 769 (Neb. 1983), *People v Roybal,*655 P.2d 460 (Colo. 1982) and *State v Taylor,*3 Ohio Ap. 3 1987, 44 N.E. 2d 481 (1981).

Based on the authorities cited, the odor of alcohol, absent other sufficient indicia of impairment, does not provide probable cause required for a driver to submit to field sobriety tests.

There appearing no abuse of discretion in the facts of this case,

The Trial Court is AFFIRMED.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________
No. 02

- 19

- 00299

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from Probate Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. PR

- 2016

- 00301

Before Gabriel, Kerr, and Birdwell, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion on Rehearing 

### T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS 

### , Appellant

V



### .
RG W ILLIAMS 

### F AMILY 

### E NTERPRISES 

### , LP, A 

### T EXAS 

### L IMITED



### P ARTNERSHIP 

### , Appellee2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON REHEARING

We have considered appel lant ’s “ Un opposed Motion t o Rehear, Set Aside

Dismissal Orde r, a nd Remand Pursuant t o Settlement

. ” Because the parties have
settled all matters in the appeal, it is the c ourt ’ s opinion that the motion should be
granted. W e withdraw this court ’s prior opinion and judgment of Ap ril 2, 2020

. W e

set aside the trial cour t’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand this case
to the trial court to render judgment in accor dance with the parties’ agreement. See
Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B); Innovative Office Sys., Inc. v. Johnson , 911 S.W. 2d 387, 388
(Tex. 1995 ).

Ea ch party must bear its own costs of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered : Apr

il 16, 2020
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31552-31553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12498]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2410]


Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

May 12, 2000.
    Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's 
rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of these documents 
are available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, 
S.W., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to these petitions 
must be filed by June 2, 2000. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the 
Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be 
filed within 10 days after the time of filing oppositions has expired.

[[Page 31553]]

    Subject: Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement 
Act of 1999 (CS Docket No. 99-363).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12498 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
exv10w1







Exhibit 10.1




Summary of Executive Compensation Notification

Other Executive Officers




2010 Fiscal Year Compensation of Certain Other Named Executive Officers.




     The Board of Directors also established and approved the 2010 fiscal year annual base salaries
of our other named executive officers. The salaries and other compensation approved are as set
forth below in Table II.



Table II




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Discretionary
	 	 	 	 	Annual Base Salary	 	Bonus Plan
	Name	 	Office	 	(2010 Fiscal Year)	 	(2010 Fiscal Year)
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Bill W. Wheat
	 	Executive Vice President and CFO	 	$	250,000	 	 	See Note II
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Stacey H. Dwyer
	 	Executive Vice President and Treasurer	 	$	250,000	 	 	See Note II






Note II:




     The Board of Directors may award discretionary bonuses to the executives listed in Table II
above based on the performance of these executives. In addition, Mr. Wheat and Ms. Dwyer may
participate in two separate deferred compensation plans. The first plan allows the executive to
make voluntary income deferrals. The second plan is a promise by the Company to pay retirement
benefits to the executive. Furthermore, if the executive is employed by the Company on the last
day of the current fiscal year (for example September 30, 2010), then the Company will establish a
liability to him or her equal to 10% of his or her annual base salary as of first day of the
current fiscal year (for example October 1, 2009). This liability will accrue earnings in future
years at a rate established by the administrative committee.
###### Editorial Note on [Part 1926](/current/title-29/part-1926?toc=1)

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At [44 FR 8577](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-8577), Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at [44 FR 20940](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-20940), Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of [29 CFR part 1926](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/part-1926) together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in [29 CFR part 1910](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/part-1910), which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at [84 FR 21597](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-21597), May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.59 Hazard communication.

Note:

The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1200 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1200).

[[61 FR 31431](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31431), June 20, 1996]
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-23-00125-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

481st District Court of Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 23-1609-481

Before Womack, Kerr, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE HTRV RESORT, LLC, Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and the 

response thereto and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied, and the temporary stay of all trial 

court proceedings is lifted.

Per Curiam

Delivered: May 2, 2023