alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0430 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0430

**2000/430/EC: Commission Decision of 6 July 2000 amending Decision 1999/710/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of minced meat and meat preparations (notified under document number C(2000) 1846) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 170 , 11/07/2000 P. 0014 - 0014 *

Commission Decision

of 6 July 2000

amending Decision 1999/710/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of minced meat and meat preparations

(notified under document number C(2000) 1846)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/430/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs(1), as amended by Decision 98/603/EC(2), and in particular Article 2(1) and Article 7 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) A provisional list of establishments producing minced meat and meat preparations has been drawn up by Commission Decision 1999/710/EC(3).

(2) Romania has sent a list of establishments producing minced meat and meat preparations and for which the responsible authorities certify that the establishments are in accordance with the Community rules.

(3) A provisional list of establishments producing minced meat and meat preparations can thus be drawn up for Romania in accordance with the procedure laid down in Council Decision 95/408/EC in respect of certain countries.

(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 text of the Annex to this Decision is added to the Annex to Decision 1999/710/EC.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 July 2000.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 289, 28.10.1998, p. 36.

(3) OJ L 281, 4.11.1999, p. 82.

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

País: RUMANIA/Land: RUMÆNIEN/Land: RUMÄNIEN/Χώρα: ΡΟΥΜΑΝΙΑ/Country: ROMANIA/Pays: ROUMANIE/Paese: ROMANIA/Land: ROEMENIË/País: ROMÉNIA/Maa: ROMANIA/Land: RUMÄNIEN

>TABLE>
§ 89.540 Rescission and reconsideration. ( a ) *Rescission of the FAA's acceptance of a declaration of compliance.* ( 1 ) A declaration of compliance is subject to ongoing review by the Administrator. The Administrator may rescind acceptance of a declaration of compliance under circumstances including but not limited to the following: ( i ) A standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module listed under an accepted declaration of compliance does not meet the minimum performance requirements of § 89.310 or § 89.320.
( ii ) A previously FAA-accepted declaration of compliance does not meet a requirement of this subpart; or
( iii ) The FAA rescinds acceptance of the means of compliance listed in an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance.
( 2 ) The Administrator will notify the person who submitted the FAA-accepted declaration of compliance of any issue of noncompliance.
( 3 ) If the Administrator determines that it is in the public interest, prior to rescinding acceptance of a declaration of compliance, the Administrator may provide a reasonable period of time for the person who submitted the declaration of compliance to remediate the noncompliance. A failure to remediate the noncompliance constitutes cause for rescission of the FAA's acceptance of the declaration of compliance.
( 4 ) The Administrator will notify the person who submitted the declaration of compliance of the decision to rescind acceptance of the declaration of compliance by publishing a notice of rescission in the Federal Register.
( b ) *Petition to reconsider the FAA's decision to rescind acceptance of a declaration of compliance.* ( 1 ) The person who submitted the FAA-accepted declaration of compliance or any person adversely affected by the rescission of the Administrator's acceptance of a declaration of compliance may petition for a reconsideration of the decision by submitting a request to the FAA in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator within 60 calendar days of the date of publication in the Federal Register of notification of rescission.
( 2 ) A petition to reconsider the rescission of the Administrator's acceptance of a declaration of compliance must show that the petitioner is an interested party and has been adversely affected by the decision of the FAA. The petition must also demonstrate at least one of the following: ( i ) The petitioner adduces a significant additional fact not previously presented to the FAA.
( ii ) The Administrator made a material error of fact in the decision to rescind acceptance of the declaration of compliance.
( iii ) The Administrator did not correctly interpret a law, regulation, or precedent.
( 3 ) Upon consideration of the information submitted by the petitioner, the Administrator will notify the petitioner and the person who submitted the declaration of compliance (if different) of the decision on whether to reinstate the Administrator's acceptance of the declaration of compliance.
( c ) *Inapplicability of part 13, subpart D, of this chapter.* Part 13, subpart D, of this chapter does not apply to the procedures of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
#### § 4000.2 What definitions do I need to know for these rules?

You need to know two definitions from § 4001.2 of this chapter: PBGC and person. You also need to know the following definitions:

*Filing* means any notice, information, or payment that you submit to us under our regulations.

*Issuance* means any notice or other information you provide to any person other than us under our regulations.

*We* means the PBGC.

*You* means the person filing with us.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lite King Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31,, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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 operation of the Company.

Date: March 9, 2006                    By:
                                                -----------------------
                                       Name:    David L. Norris
                                       Title:   Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lite King Corporation
and will be retained by Lite King Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# EUR-Lex - 32000R1372 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R1372

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1372/2000 of 28 June 2000 establishing a forecast balance for the supply to the Canary Islands of milk and milk products **

*
Official Journal L 156 , 29/06/2000 P. 0021 - 0022 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1372/2000

of 28 June 2000

establishing a forecast balance for the supply to the Canary Islands of milk and milk products

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Canary Islands with regard to certain agricultural products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1305/2000(2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) In application of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92, the quantities of the forecast supply balance for the milk sector should be determined for the period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 for supplies to the Canary Islands.

(2) The quantities of the forecast supply balance for those products is fixed in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1337/1999(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1186/2000(4), for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. In order to continue to satisfy requirements for milk and milk products, the abovementioned quantities should be fixed for the period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001.

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the purposes of Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92, the quantities of the forecast supply balance for the Canary Islands in the milk sector benefiting, as appropriate from exemption from import duties for products from third countries or for Community aid for products from the Community market shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Where, as regards a particular product separate amounts are fixed in the forecast supply balance for direct consumption, and for processing and/or packaging respectively, an adjustment in the breakdown as between the prescribed uses is permitted, within a limit of 20 % of the total quantity fixed for that product.

Article 2

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

It shall apply from 1 July 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 28 June 2000.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992, p. 13.

(2) OJ L 148, 22.6.2000, p. 15.

(3) OJ L 159, 25.6.1999, p. 18.

(4) OJ L 133, 6.6.2000, p. 17.

ANNEX

Forecast supply balance for milk and milk products for the Canary Islands for the period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001

>TABLE>
#### § 2575.502c-3 Adjusted civil penalty under section 502(c)(3).

In accordance with the requirements of the 1990 Act, as amended, the maximum amount of the civil monetary penalty established by section 502(c)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), is hereby increased from $100 a day to $110 a day. This adjusted penalty applies only to violations occurring after July 29, 1997.
§ 2204.405 Further proceedings. ( a ) Ordinarily, the determination of an award will be made on the basis of the written record. However, on request of either the applicant or the Secretary, or on his or her own initiative, the judge presiding over an EAJA proceeding may, if necessary for a full and fair decision on the application, order the filing of additional written submissions; hold oral argument; or allow for discovery or hold an evidentiary hearing, but only as to issues other than whether the agency's position was substantially justified (such as those involving the applicant's eligibility or substantiation of fees and expenses). Any written submissions shall be made, oral argument held, discovery conducted, and evidentiary hearing held as promptly as possible so as not to delay a decision on the application for fees. Whether or not the position of the Secretary was substantially justified shall be determined on the basis of the administrative record, as a whole, which is made in the adversary adjudication for which fees and other expenses are sought.
( b ) A request for further proceedings under this section shall specifically identify the information sought or the disputed issues and shall explain why the additional proceedings are necessary to resolve the issues.
128 STAT. 1878 PUBLIC LAW 113–165—SEPT. 19, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 231: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 113–235 (Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

July 31, considered and passed Senate. 

Sept. 8, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–165 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2013’’. 

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

Section 2(c)(2) of the Multinational Species Conservation Funds 

Semipostal Stamp Act of 2010 (39 U.S.C. 416 note) is amended 

by striking ‘‘2 years’’ and inserting ‘‘6 years’’. 

Approved September 19, 2014. 

39 USC 101 note. 

Multinational 

Species 

Conservation 

Funds 

Semipostal 

Stamp 

Reauthorization 

Act of 2013. 

Sept. 19, 2014 

[S. 231] 


kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**


**OF**


**PRINCIPAL
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND**


**PRINCIPAL
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C.1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








I,
      John
      Z. Ferguson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30,
      2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of a21, Inc.





I,
      Thomas
      Costanza, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30,
      2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of a21, Inc.





Pursuant
      to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
      certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.








By:
                /s/ JOHN Z. FERGUSON
              ----------------------------------
              John
                Z. Ferguson
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
              
              
              By:
                /s/ THOMAS COSTANZA
              ----------------------------------
              Thomas
                Costanza
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)
              
              Dated:  August
                10, 2007
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.51 Exemptions. ( a ) The provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3717 do not apply: ( 1 ) To debts owed by any State or local government;
( 2 ) To debts arising under contracts which were executed prior to, and were in effect on (i.e., were not completed as of), October 25, 1982;
( 3 ) To debts where an applicable statute, regulation required by statute, loan agreement, or contract either prohibits such charges or explicitly fixes the charges that apply to the debts involved; or
( 4 ) To debts arising under the Social Security Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or the tariff laws of the United States.
( b ) Agencies are authorized to assess interest and related charges on debts which are not subject to 31 U.S.C. 3717 to the extent authorized under the common law or other applicable statutory authority.
#### AKE SWANSON v. ELLING G. MELLEN.1

December 23, 1896.

Nos. 10,222 — (176).

Action for Services — Expert Evidence.

*Eeld,*it was not, under tbe circumstances, error to admit the expert evidence given as to the value of plaintiff’s services, which evidence is complained of merely because the expert witness did not hear all of the testimony of plaintiff as to the character of the services rendered.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Egan, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a verdict in favor of plaintiff for ¡§604.41.

Affirmed.

*487
      *Samuel A. Anderson,*for appellant.

*James JS. Trash,*for respondent.

Reported in 69 N. W. 620.

CANTY, J.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover the value of services rendered by him for defendant from April 1 to December 6, 1895, in assisting defendant in his business of dealing in and selling farm lands in this state. The only issue on the trial was the value of plaintiff’s services. Plaintiff had a verdict, and, from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.

The only question raised on this appeal is the ruling of the court permitting one Norton, a witness called by plaintiff, to testify as an expert to the value of plaintiff’s services. Norton testified that he heard a part, but not all, of the testimony of plaintiff as to the character of the services performed by plaintiff. The bill of exceptions contains a statement of the character of these services as testified to by plaintiff, and it appears from the evidence of Norton that the hind of services so performed were not exceptional or peculiar, but are a familiar type of services rendered in. that line of business, to wit, doing advertising, distributing circulars, looking up customers, taking them out in the country, and showing the lands for sale. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that it was error to admit the testimony complained of.

Order affirmed.
#### UNION SAVINGS *&*LOAN CO v KUPETZ, et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10735.

Decided June 16, 1929

Suggs Garber, Cleveland, for Savings & Lo,an Co.

Wm. J. Corrigan, Cleveland, for Kupetz, et.

*506SULLIVAN, J.

It is argued that' the memoranda in pen and ink upon the envelope of the escrow order, executed by Keller and the Kupetz’ in addition to the agreement above quoted, made Dec. 3, 1925, constitutes an assumption of the indebtedness which would include the amount due on the deficiency judgment, but an examination of the memoranda referred to fails to disclose any obligation assumed by the defendants to pay the mortgage indebtedness. It is indefinite, uncertain, ambiguous and vague and an obligation of assumption does not arise from this memoranda.

When we come to examine the other document of Dec. 3, 1925 as above quoted, we must consider it in connection with the fact that in the foreclosure proceedings the Kupetz’ were not made parties defendant and while it may not be mandatory under the statute that in the foreclosure proceedings the Kupetz’ be made parties defendant, yet it clearly appears that as parties in interest they were entitled to service of process because of their right as purchasers to_, subrogation and that this was a substantial right there can be no question because had they been made parties defendant it may be that there would not have been a deficiency judgment because of possible and probable action on their part so to control the foreclosure proceedings and sale that there would be no deficiency judgment against them or at least that it would not be in the amount sued for in the instant case.

Again, we do not see .any consideration passing from the Kupetz’ to the plaintiff in error by reason of the writing of Dec. 3, 1925. It seems to be more in the nature of an advice that the Kupetz’ had purchased the property and considered it advisable to notify plaintiff in error of the transaction and that seems to be the extent to which they obligated themselves in this particular document. At that time they were under no obligation to the plaintiff in error and plaintiff in error was under no obligation to them and we think that under the circumstances appearing in the record, and especially because the Kupetz’ were not made defendants in the foreclosure suit that a reasonable construction of the writing does not go to the extent which, under all the evidence in the record, and the peculiar circumstances surrounding the transaction, makes the Kupetz’ liable for the deficiency judgment which arose from the foreclosure proceedings to which they were not a party.

As to the right of defendants to process in the foreclosure suit, we cite Pomeroy’s Code Remedies, 1929, Paragraph 231, page 369. ■

Wé think that this doctrine laid down by Pomeroy is distinctly applicable and controlling in the case at bar and our holding is that the judgment of the Municipal Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Vickery, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting; correction.

On May 9, 2000, the Department of Energy published a notice of open meeting announcing a meeting on May 24, 2000 of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Los Alamos (65 FR 26824). In that notice the meeting address was Highlands University, Kennedy Hall, 11th Street and University Avenue, Las Vegas, New Mexico. Today's notice is announcing that the meeting address has changed due to the fires at Los Alamos. The new meeting address is 2040 South Pacheco Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. 

Issued in Washington, DC on May 16, 2000.

Rachel M. Samuel, 

Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-12748 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P