alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0424 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0424

**1999/424/CFSP: Council Decision of 28 June 1999 amending Decision 1999/357/CFSP implementing Common Position 1999/318/CFSP concerning additional restrictive measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia **

*
Official Journal L 163 , 29/06/1999 P. 0086 - 0093 *

COUNCIL DECISION

of 28 June 1999

amending Decision 1999/357/CFSP implementing Common Position 1999/318/CFSP concerning additional restrictive measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

(1999/424/CFSP)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Common Position 1999/318/CFSP(1) adopted by the Council on 10 May 1999 concerning additional restrictive measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Decision 1999/357/CFSP(2) implementing that Common Position,

Whereas the list at Article 1 of Decision 1999/357/CFSP needs to be updated in accordance with Article 1(3) of Common Position 1999/318/CFSP,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 1 of Decision 1999/357/CFSP shall be replaced by the following: "Article 1

The persons to which the obligation of non-admission referred to in Article 1 of Common Position 99/318/CFSP applies are the following:

>TABLE>"

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal.

Done at Luxembourg, 28 June 1999.

For the Council

The President

M. NAUMANN

(1) OJ L 123, 13.5.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 140, 3.6.1999, p. 1.
Docket Number FAA-2014-0626

. Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 1/24/14

Regional Airline Association 1/24/14

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 1/24/14

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 1/24/14
§ 37.81 Are there any circumstances under which the Director may extend the time limit for filing a complaint with him or her? Yes. The Director may extend the 30-day time limit: ( a ) If the recipient does not include in its Notice of Final Action the required notice about the complainant's right to file with the Director, as described in § 37.76(b)(5)(ii); or
( b ) For other good cause shown.
The complainant has the burden of proving to the Director that the time limit should be extended.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 881 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the 

railroad track maintenance credit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2007 

Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. SMITH) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

and modify the railroad track maintenance credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Short Line Railroad 

5 Investment Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF RAILROAD 

7 TRACK MAINTENANCE CREDIT. 

8 (a) EXTENSION.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d) of section 

10 45G of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 881 IS

1 to qualified railroad track maintenance expendi2 tures) is amended by striking ‘‘for maintaining’’ and 

3 all that follows and inserting ‘‘for maintaining— 

4 ‘‘(A) in the case of taxable years beginning 

5 after December 31, 2004, and before January 

6 1, 2008, railroad track (including roadbed, 

7 bridges, and related track structures) owned or 

8 leased as of January 1, 2005, by a Class II or 

9 Class III railroad (determined without regard 

10 to any consideration for such expenditures 

11 given by the Class II or Class III railroad which 

12 made the assignment of such track), and 

13 ‘‘(B) in the case of taxable years beginning 

14 after December 31, 2007, and before January 

15 1, 2011, railroad track (including roadbed, 

16 bridges, and related track structures) owned or 

17 leased as of January 1, 2007, by a Class II or 

18 Class III railroad (determined without regard 

19 to any consideration for such expenditures 

20 given by the Class II or Class III railroad which 

21 made the assignment of such track).’’. 

22 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 45G 

23 of such Code is amended by striking subsection (f). 

24 (b) COORDINATION WITH SECTION 55.—Section 

25 38(c)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•S 881 IS

1 amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (i), by 

2 striking the period at the end of clause (ii)(II) and insert3 ing ‘‘, and’’, and by adding at the end the following new 

4 clause: 

5 ‘‘(iii) the credit determined under sec6 tion 45G.’’. 

7 (c) CREDIT LIMITATION ADJUSTMENT.—Subpara8 graph (A) of section 45G(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue 

9 Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘$3,500’’ and insert10 ing ‘‘$4,500’’. 

11 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 December 31, 2007. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
[No. 27675-5-II.

Division Two.

December 31, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Laura L. Gotschall, *Respondent,*and John F. Gotschall, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 99-3-00672-0, Kitty-Ann van Doominck, J., entered July 6, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., concurred in by Morgan and Houghton, JJ.
The ERT file for Facility 6469 Antelope Valley Station Unit B2 does not contain any emissions data, therefore an extracted ERT Test Report is not provided.  The VOC and CO Emssion data is instead contained in the file 6469_Unit_B2_VOC_CO.xlsx.
POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Director and/or
officer of Kinark Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby
constitutes and appoints Paul R. Chastain the true and lawful agent and
attorney-in-fact of the undersigned with full power of substitution and
authority to sign for the undersigned, as Director or an officer of the
Company, or as both, the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the period
ended December 31, 1999, and any and all exhibits and amendments thereto to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C. pursuant
to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; hereby
ratifying and confirming all acts taken by such agent and attorney-in-fact as
herein authorized.

Dated: March 29, 2000                   /s/ Michael T. Crimmins
                                        Michael T. Crimmins
§ 1983.103 Filing of retaliation complaint. ( a ) *Who may file.* An employee who believes that he or she has been retaliated against by a manufacturer, private labeler, distributor, or retailer in violation of CPSIA may file, or have filed by any person on the employee's behalf, a complaint alleging such retaliation.
( b ) *Nature of filing.* No particular form of complaint is required. A complaint may be filed orally or in writing. Oral complaints will be reduced to writing by OSHA. If the complainant is unable to file the complaint in English, OSHA will accept the complaint in any language.
( c ) *Place of filing.* The complaint should be filed with the OSHA office responsible for enforcement activities in the geographical area where the employee resides or was employed, but may be filed with any OSHA officer or employee. Addresses and telephone numbers for these officials are set forth in local directories and at the following Internet address: *http://www.osha.gov .*
( d ) *Time for filing.* Within 180 days after an alleged violation of CPSIA occurs, any employee who believes that he or she has been retaliated against in violation of CPSIA may file, or have filed by any person on the employee's behalf, a complaint alleging such retaliation. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, electronic communication transmittal, telephone call, hand-delivery, delivery to a third-party commercial carrier, or in-person filing at an OSHA office will be considered the date of filing. The time for filing a complaint may be tolled for reasons warranted by applicable case law.
§ 2203.2 Definitions. For the purposes of this part: *Expedited closing procedure* means the simplified procedures described at 5 U.S.C. 552b(d)(4) for announcing and closing certain agency meetings.
*General Counsel* means the General Counsel of the Commission, or any other person designated by the General Counsel to carry out his responsibilities under this part.
*Meeting* means the deliberations of at least two Commissioners, where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of “official Commission business.” A conference telephone call among the Commissioners is a *meeting* if it otherwise qualifies as a *meeting* under this paragraph. The term does not include: ( a ) The deliberations required or permitted under §§ 2203.4(d) and 2203.5, e.g., a discussion of whether to open or close a meeting under this part;
( b ) Business that is conducted by circulating written materials sequentially among the Commissioners for their consideration on an individual basis;
( c ) A gathering at which the Chairman of the Commission seeks the advice of the other Commissioners on the carrying out of a function that has been vested in the Chairman, by statute or otherwise; or
( d ) Informal discussions of the Commissioners that clarify issues and expose varying views but do not effectively predetermine official actions.
*Official Commission business* means matters that are the responsibility of the Commission acting as a collegial body, including the adjudication of litigated cases. The term does not include matters that are the responsibility of the Commission's Chairman. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. 661(e).
*Regularly-scheduled meetings* means meetings of the Commission that are held at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday of each week, except on legal holidays. The term includes regularly-scheduled meetings that have been rescheduled for another time or day.
[50 FR 51679, Dec. 19, 1985, as amended at 73 FR 56492, Sept. 29, 2008; 74 FR 63988, Dec. 7, 2009]
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs June 15, 2004

FLOYD W. JENKINS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

 Appeal from the Criminal Court for Monroe County

No. 98-049 Carroll L. Ross, Judge

No. E2004-00705-CCA-R3-PC - Filed July 26, 2004

The petitioner, Floyd W. Jenkins, appeals the Monroe County Criminal Court’s denial of his Motion

for Probation. The state contends that the trial court properly denied the motion because the

petitioner is serving his sentences in the Department of Correction and the trial court no longer has

jurisdiction over him. We agree with the state and, pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R.,

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed Pursuant

to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R.

JOSEPH M. TIPTON,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T. WOODALL and JOHN

EVERETT WILLIAMS, JJ., joined.

Floyd W. Jenkins, Petros, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michelle Chapman McIntire, Assistant Attorney

General; and Jerry N. Estes, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The record reflects that in July 1998, the petitioner pled guilty to three counts of car burglary,

a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II offender to three years on probation

for each conviction and ordered that two of the sentences be served consecutively. In February 2000,

the trial court revoked the petitioner’s probation and ordered that he serve his sentences in the

Department of Correction (DOC). In February 2004, the petitioner filed a pro se Motion for

Probation, requesting that the trial court reinstate his probation. The trial court denied the motion

on the basis that it no longer had jurisdiction over the petitioner because he was serving his sentences

in the DOC. The petitioner appeals, claiming that the trial court retained jurisdiction over his case

and that the trial court should have appointed counsel to represent him. 
-2-

Once the petitioner was transferred to the DOC, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the

petitioner’s sentences. State v. Bowling, 958 S.W.2d 362 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); see T.C.A. §

40-35-212(d). Thus, to the extent that he is seeking probation for the sentence he is currently

serving, the trial court properly determined that it had lost jurisdiction over the petitioner’s case. We

note that Rule 35, Tenn. R. Crim. P., provides that a “trial court may reduce a sentence upon

application filed within 120 days after the date the sentence is imposed or probation is revoked.”

Obviously, the petitioner’s request to have his probation reinstated was well outside that time limit.

Pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R., we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion.

 

___________________________________ 

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John J. DeCicco, Respondent, against Rubel Corporation et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

Argued September 28, 1937;

decided October 12, 1937.

*William B. Davis*and *E. C. Sherwood*for appellants.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Roy Wiedersum*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

*Paul J. Carr*for claimant, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Pinch and Rippey, JJ.
DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January Term, 1900.]

Smith, Swing and Giffen, JJ.

#### Doppler et al. v. Clouwetter.

1. Wirr Vesting Fee Upon Testator’s Death.

Under a will bequeathing to each of testator’s children one-fourth of his estate, subject to be divested in the event that either died befóse the widow leaving issue surviving, and that event does not happen, each child becomes vested with a fee, subject to the widow’s life estate, upon the death of testator.

2. Ancestral Property — Descent upon Death oe Child.

Upon the death of a child so inheriting, without issue, her husband takes a life estate and the fee goes to her brothers and sisters, though subject to the life estate of testator’s widow who still survives.

Heard on Error.

Swing, J.

We think the judgment of the court of common pleas should be affirmed. By item three of the will of Andrew Doppler each of his children became vested with the fee of the one-fourth of his estate, subject of course to the life estate of his widow, and subject to be divested in the event that either died before the widow leaving issue surviving; but this event did not happen, and therefore each child became vested on the death of Andrew Doppler, with the fee of one-fourth of his real estate subject to the widow’s life estate.

Upon the death of the child Caroline her estate descended to her heirs. Who are they under the statute ?

In this case, being ancestral property and leaving no issue, the life estate goes to the husband and the fee to her brothers and sisters. The fact that the life estate of Doppler’s widow still existed at the time of her daughter’s death, can make no difference. Whatever estate she had, and it was clearly a fee, passed under the statute, and by the same law that the brother and sisters take the fee, the surviving husband takes a life estate.

The judgment below must therefore in our judgment be affirmed.
§ 101.40 Proceedings following the filing of the petition. ( a ) A copy of the petition is served on all other parties and the appropriate Regional Director by the petitioner.
( b ) Interested persons may request intervention by a written motion to the Board. Such intervention may be granted at the discretion of the Board.
( c ) Parties other than the petitioner may reply to the petition in writing, admitting or denying any or all of the matters asserted therein.
( d ) No briefs shall be filed except upon special permission of the Board.
( e ) After review of the entire record, the Board issues an advisory opinion as to whether the facts presented would or would not cause it to assert jurisdiction over the case if the case had been originally filed before it. The Board will limit its advisory opinion to the jurisdictional issue confronting it, and will not presume to render an opinion on the merits of the case or on the question of whether the subject matter of the dispute is governed by the Labor Management Relations Act.
[No. 20585-1-III.

Division Three.

December 12, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jeffery Brian Sankey, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 01-1-00431-1, Paul A. Bastine, J., entered October 11, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Kurtz, J.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12829]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Graduate Education; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Graduate Education (57).
    Date/Time: June 29th and 30th 2000, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 375, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Persons: Dr. Sonia Ortega, Program Director, Mrs. 
Carolyn L. Piper, Asst. Program Director, Dr. Barbara Mulach, 
Presidential Management Intern, GK-12 Program and Ms. Deborah A. 
Daniels, Senior Program Assistant, Division of Graduate Education, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd. Room 907N, Arlington, 
VA 22230. (703) 306-1697.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate applications submitted to the 
NSF-Graduate teaching Fellows in K-12 Education program as part of 
the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data, such as salaries, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 17, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12829 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Order entered April 9, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00161
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF P.Z.F., A CHILD On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JC
- 18
- 00558
- X

O RDER In accordance with our April 8, 2021 order, appellant has filed written verification he has requested the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER Pamela Sumler, Official Court Reporter for the 305 th Judicial District Court, to file the record no later than April 19, 2021. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 35.1(b). Because this is an accelerated appeal in a parental termination case, the trial court must arrange for a substitute reporter if necessary to ensure the timely filing of the record. See id. 28.4(b)(1).We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the

Honorable Cheryl Lee Shannon, Presiding Judge of the 305th Judicial District Court; Ms. Sumler; and, the parties. /s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32





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 Intelligent Living Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 result of operations of the Company.



DATED:

October 22, 2012

/s/ Michael F. Holloran

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

Michael F. Holloran;

Chief Executive Officer and

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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



| | 1. |  | The Amendment No. 1 to 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Company.





|                         |                     |                                                       
|------------------------ | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|                         |                     |                                                       
|Dated September 10, 2003 | /s/CRAIG E. LABARGE
|                         |                     | Craig E. LaBarge
Chief Executive Officer and President



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



| | 1. |  | The Amendment No. 1 to 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Company.





|                         |  |                                                                
|------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated September 10, 2003 | 
|                         |  | /s/DONALD H. NONNENKAMP                                        
|                         |  | Donald H. Nonnenkamp
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer