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

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — DG EAC/68/04

‘PROMOTION OF ACTIVE EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP’

Support to non-governmental organisations and associations and federations of European interest

(2004/C 252/06)

1.   OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION

This call for proposals supports initiatives conducted by (a) non-governmental organisations and (b) associations and federations of European interest, participating in European dialogue, on specific themes relating to the objectives of the programme to promote active European citizenship.

Project proposals should relate to one or more of the following thematic areas, with a view to encouraging reflection and discussion on the consolidation of the European Union, and/or promoting and disseminating its values and objectives:

Thematic areas

2.   ELIGIBLE ORGANISATIONS

Proposals may be submitted by non-governmental organisations and associations and federations of European interest that have legal personality and are registered in one of the countries referred below, are independent of public authorities, have the appropriate qualifications and requisite financial and operational resources to complete the project, and are of known and moral integrity.

Demands from NGOs or associations/federations of European interest having a legal status and being established in one of the following countries are eligible:

3.   BUDGET AND DURATION OF PROJETS

The total budget for projects support addressed to:

The project must begin between the 1 May 2005 and the 1 November 2005.

The maximum total duration of a project will be 12 months.

4.   DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS

Proposals must be submitted by 30 November 2004.

5.   FURTHER INFORMATION

The specifications and the application forms are available on the Europa server on the Internet at the following address of the European Commission:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/education_culture/activecitizenship/index_en.htm

Applications for funding must respect the conditions set out in the specifications and must be submitted on the application forms provided.

----

(1)OJ L 61, 2.3.2002, p. 29.

----
#### REMUS v. GARVER

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co

No. 3621.

Decided January 13, 1929

Messrs. Thos. D. Slattery and Anthony B. Dunlap, Cincinnati, for Remus.

Messrs. Alfred G. Allen and Pogue, Hoffheimer & Pogue, for Garver.

JUDGES WILLIAMS, LLOYD & RICHARDS (6th Dist) sitting.

BY THE COURT

We have no difficulty in concluding that the finding of the court of common pleas is correct as to the character and purpose of the conveyance made by plaintiff to the defendant and that the plaintiff was consulted and assented to the sale of the property by the defendant. The only other *155question involved is as to what sum should be awarded to the defendant for the services which he performed in behalf of the plaintiff. Defendant’s statement of the services claimed to have been rendered by him covers a period of time from January, 1923 to and including part of January, 1929. This statement and the testimony of defendant' relates to numerous conferences, many trips to other cities and services generally involving large sums as to the affairs of Remus and litigation in which it is claimed he was interested. The statement of services presented by defendant; and as to which he testified, covers about 30 typewritten pages of single spaced items. The evidence shows a conflict of opinion as to the value of the services of defendant, and the value of professional services being relative, depending largely upon the judgment and belief of the expert testifying, we think in' this case, as in most others of similar character, the true value is somewhere between the conflicting values given. After as careful an examination as we have been able to give to the question in controversy, we are of opinion that there should be awarded to the defendant as fees for services rendered by him to plaintiff an amount somewhat in excess of that fixed by the court of common pleas, and we therefore find that $24,000.00 represents the reasonable value of the professional services rendered by defendant to plaintiff. Otherwise the findings, decree and judgment of the court of common pleas are approved and adopted, and an entry may be prepared accordingly.

Williams, Lloyd and Richards, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1291]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[UT-912-00-0777-XQ]

Notice of Meeting; Utah Resource Advisory Council

AGENCY:  Bureau of Land Management.

ACTION:  Notice of Meeting of the Utah Advisory Council.

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

SUMMARY:  The Bureau of Land Management's Utah Statewide Resource 
Advisory Council meeting will be held on January 20-21, 2000, in Provo, 
Utah.
    The purpose of this meeting is to provide the Council with an 
overview of Utah's recreation management program as well as developing 
guidelines for recreation management.
    The meeting will be held at the Hampton Inn, (Sundance Room), 1511 
South 40 East, Provo, Utah. It is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. on 
January 20 and conclude at noon on January 21. A public comment period, 
where members of the public may address the Council, is scheduled from 
12:30-1:00 p.m. on January 20. All meetings of the BLM's Resource 
Advisory Council are open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Sherry Foot, Special Programs 
Coordinator, Utah State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 324 South 
State Street, Salt Lake City, 84111; phone (801) 539-4195.

    Dated: January 10, 2000.
Sally Wisely,
Utah BLM State Director.
[FR Doc. 00-1291 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-M
```
§ 2200.105 Ex parte communication. ( a ) *General.* Except as permitted by § 2200.120 or as otherwise authorized by law, there shall be no ex parte communication with respect to the merits of any case not concluded, between any Commissioner, Judge, employee, or agent of the Commission who is employed in the decisional process and any of the parties or intervenors, representatives, or other interested persons.
( b ) *Disciplinary action.* In the event an ex parte communication occurs, the Commission or the Judge may make such orders or take such actions as fairness requires. The exclusion of a person by a Judge from a proceeding shall be governed by § 2200.104(b). Any disciplinary action by the Commission, including suspension or disbarment, shall be governed by § 2200.104(c).
( c ) *Placement on public record.* All ex parte communications in violation of this section shall be placed on the public record of the proceeding.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 85 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 85

  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol to honor Frank W. 
 Buckles, the last surviving United States veteran of the First World 
                                  War.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2008

Mr. Specter (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mrs. Dole, Mr. McCain, Mr. Warner, 
 Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Burr) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol to honor Frank W. 
 Buckles, the last surviving United States veteran of the First World 
                                  War.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. HONORING FRANK W. BUCKLES.

    (a) In General.--The Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be 
used at any time on June 18, 2008 for a ceremony to honor the only 
living veteran of the First World War, Mr. Frank Woodruff Buckles, as a 
tribute and recognition of all United States military members who 
served in the First World War.
    (b) Implementation.--Physical preparations for the ceremony shall 
be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of 
the Capitol may prescribe.
                                 <all>
```
Do ingredients in theproduct seem to meetexisting 152.25(f)ingredient criteria?Yes45Unknown26No64Total135EPA Analysis of Labeled Ingredients on Minimum Risk Insect Repellent ProductsEPA conducted an analysis of labels of products sold as minimum risk personal insect repellents, since labels and ingredient lists for these products tended to beavailable through online retailers; personal insect repellent products seem to make up approximately 14 percent of products registered by states that make theirregistration databases publicly available.EPA found 136 products claiming to be exempt, or which were not registered with EPA. These products were identified through 1)publicly accessible stateregistration databases, 2) nationwide sales data compiled by Nielson Company, and 3) internet searches conducted throughout 2009.EPA attempted to locate labels for these products; front or back labels were found (usually through internet searches) for allbut 26 products. EPA then comparedany stated ingredients with those on the active and inert ingredients specified in or referenced by the exemption for minimum risk products.Findings are summarized in the table and chart below.Yes45 products33%Unknown26 productsNo64 products47%Yes45 products33%Unknown26 products19%No64 products47%
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 24 June 2004

in Case C-269/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to implement Directive 98/24/EC within the prescribed period - Protection of the health and safety of workers - Risks linked to chemical agents at work)

(2004/C 217/04)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-269/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Lemaire, assisted by C. Bergeot-Nunes) — application for a declaration that, by not bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) or, in any event, by not giving notice of those measures to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, acting as President of the Third Chamber, R. Schintgen and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.

----
#### § 2200.71 Rules of evidence.

The Federal Rules of Evidence are applicable.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
136208 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 136208 COA: 282867 Wayne CC: 07-008850 MELISSA BRADBURY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 21, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0721 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 29, 2008

Clerk
#### STATE AUTO MUTUAL INS ASSN v FRIEDMAN

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22102.

Decided April 30, 1930

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 16, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20242 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DAMINE CHARLES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-526-3

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Damine Charles has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Charles was notified of counsel’s motion, but he has not filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Finamore, Robert (OST) 

From: Bill Evans [bill@mietuslaw.com] .'; M;WtfvT OF 

Sent: Thursday, February24, 2011 10:08 AM ''~'?-'pliJ/\fiOi-'i 

To: Finamore, Robert (OST) I : •'rr,p/..r,'pVM 

Subject: Aerovias de Mexico Docket 2007-26968 • -' ;. : 

_ - j 

nBob: 

On February 18, 2011,1 sent you an e-mail regarding Aeromexico's change of heart 

regarding renewal of its exemption to serve Atlanta-Acapulco, Atlanta-Puerto Vallarta and 

Los Angeles-Cancun, vviiich is scheduled to expire on March 5, 2011. Upon further 

consideration, Aeromexico also would like to renew its exemption for AtlantaIxtapa/Zihuatenejo, Los Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatenejo, and Los Angeles-Cancun, which also is 

scheduled to expire on March 5, 2011. I have no problem filing a new application to renew 

those six routes if you think that's best. 

BiU 

William C. Evans* 

Law Office of John Mietus, LLC 

6701 Democracy Boulevard #300 

Bethesda, MD 20817-7500 

(202) 747-5212 Office 

(410) 827-5074 Home Office 

(240) 396-5362 Fax 

^Admitted in the District of Columbia 

Practice limited to Federal transportation matters 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail £ind any attachments may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you 

are not the intended recipient, please do not review, use, disclose, distrilxjte or copy the information it contains; destroy this e-mail and notify the sender by reply 

e-mail or an e-mail to admin@mietuslaw.com. Thanks.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*John McGuire, Appellant.

Argued June 9, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*Warren H. Mayell*and *Robert J. Fitzsimmons*for appellant.

*William Copeland Dodge, District Attorney (Aiken A. Pope*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman and O’Brien, JJ.
Exhibit  99.4


                            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 Starberrys Corporation on Form 10-QSB
for  the  period  ending  December  31,  2003,  as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mary Hethey, Chief
Financial  Officer  and Secretary Treasurer 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  and  belief:

         (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  operations of the
Company.




                                       Mary  Hethey
                            Chief  Financial  Officer  and
                                Secretary  Treasurer

Date:  May 21,  2004
#### § 4000.15 Does the PBGC have discretion to waive these issuance requirements?

We retain the discretion to waive any requirement under this part, at any time, if warranted by the facts and circumstances.
§ 4041A.25 Periodic determinations of plan solvency. ( a ) *Annual insolvency determination.* A plan that has no benefits subject to reduction and has assets insufficient to discharge when due all of the plan's obligations with respect to nonforfeitable benefits must make periodic determinations of plan solvency in accordance with this paragraph (a). No later than six months before the beginning of the applicable plan year described in this paragraph (a), or as soon as practicable after the plan sponsor determines the applicable plan year, and no later than six months before each plan year thereafter, the plan sponsor must determine in writing whether the plan is expected to be insolvent for such plan year. The applicable plan year is— ( 1 ) For a plan that had no benefits subject to reduction when it terminated, the plan year the plan terminated; or
( 2 ) For a plan that eliminated benefits subject to reduction by amendment after termination, the plan year in which the amendment that eliminated all (or all remaining) benefits subject to reduction is effective.
( b ) *Other determination of insolvency.* Whether or not a prior determination of plan insolvency has been made under paragraph (a) of this section (or under section 4245 of ERISA), a plan sponsor that has reason to believe, taking into account the plan's recent and anticipated financial experience, that the plan is insolvent in the current plan year or is expected to be insolvent in the next plan year must determine in writing whether the plan is or is expected to be insolvent for that plan year.
( c ) *Benefit suspensions.* If the plan sponsor determines that the plan is, or is expected to be, insolvent for a plan year, it must suspend benefits in accordance with § 4281.41.
( d ) *Insolvency notices.* If the plan sponsor determines that the plan is insolvent in the current plan year or is expected to be insolvent in the next plan year it must provide notices of insolvency and notices of insolvency benefit level to PBGC and to participants and beneficiaries in accordance with subpart D of part 4281 of this chapter.
[61 FR 34052, July 1, 1996, as amended at 80 FR 55745, Sept. 17, 2015; 84 FR 18723, May 2, 2019]
§ 4050.201 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *In general.* This subpart describes PBGC's missing participants program for single-employer and multiemployer defined contribution retirement plans. The missing participants program is a program to hold retirement benefits for missing participants and beneficiaries in terminated retirement plans and to help them find and receive the benefits being held for them. For a plan to which this subpart applies, this subpart describes what the plan must do upon plan termination if it elects to use the missing participants program for missing participants and beneficiaries who are entitled to distributions. This subpart applies to a plan only if it is a plan— ( 1 ) That— ( i ) Is a defined contribution (individual account) plan described in section 3(34) of ERISA; or
( ii ) Is treated as a defined contribution (individual account) plan under section (3)(35) of ERISA (to the extent so treated);
( 2 ) That is described in section 4021(a) of ERISA and not in any paragraph of section 4021(b) of ERISA other than paragraph (1), (5), (12), or (13), including a plan described in section 403(b) of the Code under which benefits are provided through custodial accounts described in section 403(b)(7) of the Code;
( 3 ) That, if it is a transferring plan, pays all benefit transfer amounts to PBGC in money, consistent with plan provisions and applicable law; and
( 4 ) That terminates and closes out.
( b ) *Defined contribution plans that are part of defined benefit plans.* This subpart does not fail to apply to a plan merely because the plan is described in the same plan document as a defined benefit plan (to which this subpart does not apply). For example, this subpart may apply to employee contributions (or interest or earnings thereon) held as an individual account under a defined benefit plan.
( c ) *Defined contribution plans that are abandoned plans.* This subpart does not fail to apply to a plan merely because the plan is an abandoned plan, as defined in 29 CFR 2578.1.
§ 77.27 Initiation of studies. The FAA will conduct an aeronautical study when: ( a ) Requested by the sponsor of any proposed construction or alteration for which a notice is submitted; or
( b ) The FAA determines a study is necessary.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**EXPRESS
      SYSTEMS CORPORATION**


**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 Express Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randle
      Barrington-Foote, President, CEO, and Director of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.










/s/
      Randle Barrington-Foote


Randle
      Barrington-Foote


President,
      CEO, and Director


February
      7, 2006
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 August 12, 2016

Order 

Clerk

August 12, 2016

153989(67)

TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE WEST

HICKORY GROVE, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 153989

v COA: 324300

Oakland CC: 2014-138370-CH

ELBERT L. HATCHETT and LAURESTINE

W. HATCHETT,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA and 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendants.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellants to exceed the 

page limit restriction for its reply is GRANTED. The reply and addendum submitted on 

August 8, 2016, and August 9, 2016, respectively, are accepted for filing.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲ ▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/24

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 24 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL