alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31999R1490 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R1490

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/1999 of 7 July 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2179/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the specific import measures for the Canary Islands as regards tobacco **

*
Official Journal L 172 , 08/07/1999 P. 0032 - 0033 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1490/1999

of 7 July 1999

amending Regulation (EEC) No 2179/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the specific import measures for the Canary Islands as regards tobacco

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 1257/1999(2), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,

(1) Whereas Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 provides for exemption from customs duties for direct imports into the Canary Islands of up to 20000 tonnes of raw and semi-manufactured tobacco intended for the local manufacture of tobacco products;

(2) Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2179/92 of 30 July 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of the specific import measures for the Canary Islands as regards tobacco(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1492/98(4), lays down detailed rules for the application of that measure;

(3) Whereas, to provide maximum flexibility for imports of tobacco products into the Canary Islands, the overall quantity of 20000 tonnes of raw stripped tobacco may be used for the importation of other products, taking account of the coefficient of equivalence, as required by the local industry; whereas, as a result, the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2179/92 should be adjusted;

(4) Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Tobacco,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2179/92 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

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

It shall apply with effect from 1 July 1999.

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

Done at Brussels, 7 July 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

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

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

(3) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992, p. 79.

(4) OJ L 196, 14.7.1998, p. 13.

ANNEX

"ANNEX

Products eligible for exemption from customs duties on direct imports into the Canary Islands for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000

>TABLE>"
EXHIBIT 23.1





                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-30137, 33-63086
and 2-93666) of our report dated March 2, 1998, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Keystone
Consolidated Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996,
and for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996, and 1995, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



Dallas, Texas
March 24, 1998
#### § 38.39 Communication of notice in orientations.

During each presentation to orient new participants, new employees, and/or the general public to its WIOA Title I-financially assisted program or activity, in person or over the internet or using other technology, a recipient must include a discussion of rights and responsibilities under the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA and this part, including the right to file a complaint of discrimination with the recipient or the Director. This information must be communicated in appropriate languages as required in § 38.9 and in formats accessible for individuals with disabilities as required in this part and specified in § 38.15.
**Exhibit 32.1**

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of

HORIZON BANCORPORATION, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc., hereby certifies that:

| 1.     | Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on   Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, to which this   certification is attached as an exhibit (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 Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.                                                                                                                                        |

Charles S. Conoley President and Chief Executive Officer November 3, 2006

----
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 4.56 Review and reconsideration of wage determinations. ( a ) *Review by the Administrator.* ( 1 ) Any interested party affected by a wage determination issued under section 2(a) of the Act may request review and reconsideration by the Administrator. A request for review and reconsideration may be made by the contracting agency or other interested party, including contractors or prospective contractors and associations of contractors, representatives of employees, and other interested Governmental agencies. Any such request must be accompanied by supporting evidence. In no event shall the Administrator review a wage determination or its applicability after the opening of bids in the case of a competitively advertised procurement, or, later than 10 days before commencement of a contract in the case of a negotiated procurement, exercise of a contract option or extension. This limitation is necessary in order to ensure competitive equality and an orderly procurement process.
( 2 ) The Administrator shall, upon receipt of a request for reconsideration, review the data sources relied upon as a basis for the wage determination, the evidence furnished by the party requesting review or reconsideration, and, if necessary to resolve the matter, any additional information found to be relevant to determining prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits in a particular locality. The Administrator, pursuant to a review of available information, may issue a new wage determination, may cause the wage determination to be revised, or may affirm the wage determination issued, and will notify the requesting party in writing of the action taken. The Administrator will render a decision within 30 days of receipt of the request or will notify the requesting party in writing within 30 days of receipt that additional time is necessary.
( b ) *Review by the Administrative Review Board.* Any decision of the Administrator under paragraph (a) of this section may be appealed to the Administrative Review Board within 20 days of issuance of the Administrator's decision. Any such appeal shall be in accordance with the provisions of part 8 of this title.
[48 FR 49762, Oct. 27, 1983. Redesignated at 61 FR 68664, Dec. 30, 1996]
#### § 35.25 Complaint procedures.

Each recipient shall adopt and publish complaint procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action that would be prohibited by the Act or this part.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6217

In Re: DEJUAN ANDERKO WATKINS,

Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:02-cr-00106-F; 7:05-cv-00019-F) Submitted: April 20, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dejuan Anderko Watkins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dejuan Anderko Watkins petitions for a writ of mandamus claiming there was undue delay by the district court in disposing of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The Government filed a response noting that the district court entered a judgment and order denying the § 2255 motion. In light of the court’s action, we deny as moot Watkins’ petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      19,702,803
<SECURITIES>                                11,479,120
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,522,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                   502,000
<INVENTORY>                                    180,589
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            55,121,182
<PP&E>                                      20,615,022
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,162,493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,379,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,173,746
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,119
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,158,976
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,379,361
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            94,209,365
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,973,405
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,533,318
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               134,168
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             332,874
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,211,474
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,376,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,835,474
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,835,474
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.52
        

</TABLE>
----

----

I Comunicazioni

Commissione

----

Tassi di cambio dell'euro (1)

20 settembre 2004

(2004/C 234/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Fonte: tassi di cambio di riferimento pubblicati dalla Banca centrale europea.

----

----

Non opposizione ad un'operazione di concentrazione notificata

(Caso n. COMP/M.3509 — KBC/RABOBANK/JV)

(2004/C 234/02)

(Testo rilevante ai fini del SEE)

Il 14/09/2004 la Commissione ha deciso di non opporsi alla suddetta operazione di concentrazione notificata e di dichiararla compatibile con il mercato comune. La decisione si basa sull'articolo 6, paragrafo 1, lettera b), del regolamento (CE) n. 139/2004 del Consiglio. Il testo integrale della decisione è disponibile unicamente in lingua inglese e verrà reso pubblico dopo che gli eventuali segreti commerciali in esso contenuti saranno stati espunti. Il testo della decisione sarà disponibile:

----

----

Non opposizione ad un'operazione di concentrazione notificata

(Caso n. COMP/M.3538 — UNIQUA/CLARIS VITA)

(2004/C 234/03)

(Testo rilevante ai fini del SEE)

Il 13/09/2004 la Commissione ha deciso di non opporsi alla suddetta operazione di concentrazione notificata e di dichiararla compatibile con il mercato comune. La decisione si basa sull'articolo 6, paragrafo 1, lettera b), del regolamento (CE) n. 139/2004 del Consiglio. Il testo integrale della decisione è disponibile unicamente in lingua italiano e verrà reso pubblico dopo che gli eventuali segreti commerciali in esso contenuti saranno stati espunti. Il testo della decisione sarà disponibile:

----

----

Non opposizione ad un'operazione di concentrazione notificata

(Caso n. COMP/M.3551 — CD&R FUND VI/CULLIGAN)

(2004/C 234/04)

(Testo rilevante ai fini del SEE)

Il 15/09/2004 la Commissione ha deciso di non opporsi alla suddetta operazione di concentrazione notificata e di dichiararla compatibile con il mercato comune. La decisione si basa sull'articolo 6, paragrafo 1, lettera b), del regolamento (CE) n. 139/2004 del Consiglio. Il testo integrale della decisione è disponibile unicamente in lingua inglese e verrà reso pubblico dopo che gli eventuali segreti commerciali in esso contenuti saranno stati espunti. Il testo della decisione sarà disponibile:

----
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Sadie Rosenberg, Deceased. Sheldon Masser, Respondent; Howard Duboys, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 280]

—Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about June 24, 1998, admitting the subject will to probate, and bringing up for review the order of the same court and Surrogate, entered on or about April 3, 1998, and various other intermediate orders unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order entered on or about April 3, 1998 and appeals from the various intermediate orders unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the decree.

The proponent of the subject will submitted evidentiary proof sufficient to establish that the will was not the product of fraud or undue influence, namely, the transcripts of the SCPA 1404 hearing at which the attesting witnesses and attorney draftsman were examined. Appellant failed to counter such evidence with any admissible proof. Appellant’s jurisdictional challenge was waived, not having been raised in his initial objections, and in any event is without merit. We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.
§ 1607.6 Use of selection procedures which have not been validated. A. *Use of alternate selection procedures to eliminate adverse impact.* A user may choose to utilize alternative selection procedures in order to eliminate adverse impact or as part of an affirmative action program. See section 13 below. Such alternative procedures should eliminate the adverse impact in the total selection process, should be lawful and should be as job related as possible. B. *Where validity studies cannot or need not be performed.* There are circumstances in which a user cannot or need not utilize the validation techniques contemplated by these guidelines. In such circumstances, the user should utilize selection procedures which are as job related as possible and which will minimize or eliminate adverse impact, as set forth below. ( 1 ) *Where informal or unscored procedures are used.* When an informal or unscored selection procedure which has an adverse impact is utilized, the user should eliminate the adverse impact, or modify the procedure to one which is a formal, scored or quantified measure or combination of measures and then validate the procedure in accord with these guidelines, or otherwise justify continued use of the procedure in accord with Federal law.
( 2 ) *Where formal and scored procedures are used.* When a formal and scored selection procedure is used which has an adverse impact, the validation techniques contemplated by these guidelines usually should be followed if technically feasible. Where the user cannot or need not follow the validation techniques anticipated by these guidelines, the user should either modify the procedure to eliminate adverse impact or otherwise justify continued use of the procedure in accord with Federal law.
#### GIERINGER v HOWELL, et

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Butler Co

No 447.

Decided May 12, 1930

George Metzger, Cincinnati, for Gieringer.

C. W. Elliott, Middletown, ’for Defendant in error Charles R. Howell.

CUSHING, PJ.

Plaintiff in error relies upon the cases of Columbus Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Dennull, 21 Ohio App. 363, and Casey, et al v. Gaffney, et al, 22 Ohio App., 73, for a reversal. However, in those cases there was no consent, to the judgment of confirmation and distribution, while in the instant case, plaintiff in error consented to the entry of confirmation and distribution. Therefore, the cases above cited do not apply. The rule is that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, rendered by consent c-f the parties, will not be reversed on error. Jackson v. Jackson, 16 Ohio St., 163. See also: Galway v. Galway, 83 N. E. 154.

The judgment of the court of Common Pleas of Butler County is, therefore, affirmed.

Ross and Hamilton, JJ, concur.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00290

- CR

TELVIN JAMALL HORNE

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No

. 1

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20153671CR1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Telvin Jamall Horne was charged with two counts of burglary of a motor vehicle.

Horne filed a notice of appeal “...from the Judgment and Sentence entered in the above

entitled and numbered cause....” No judgment and sentenced has been rendered or

pronounced in the underlying case. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction, and thisHorne v. State Page 2

appeal is dismissed without prejudice to file a notice of appeal when sentence is

pronounced. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.2(a).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justic e Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 21 , 2016

Do not publish

[CR25]

1 Because there is no judgment, no certificate of right to appeal has been, nor can it be, prepared and signed

by the trial court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)

.
Return
      to Main Document




**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
   
  **EXPRESS
        SYSTEMS, CORPORATIN.**
 **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 September 30, 2006 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard
        Brown, Principal Accounting Officer, Principal Financial Officer,
        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/
        Richard Brown
 ______________________
 Richard
        Brown
 Principal
        Accounting Officer, Principal Financial Officer, and Director
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 813 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an above-the-line 

deduction for attorney fees and costs in connection with civil claim awards. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2007 

Mr. SPECTER 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 allow an 

above-the-line deduction for attorney fees and costs in 

connection with civil claim awards. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR ATTORNEY 

4 FEES AND COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH 

5 CIVIL CLAIM AWARDS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (20) of section 62(a) 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

8 as follows: 

9 ‘‘(20) COSTS INVOLVING CIVIL CASES.—Any de10 duction allowable under this chapter for attorney 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 813 IS

1 fees and court costs paid by, or on behalf of, the 

2 taxpayer in connection with any action involving a 

3 civil claim. The preceding sentence shall not apply to 

4 any deduction in excess of the amount includible in 

5 the taxpayer’s gross income for the taxable year on 

6 account of a judgment or settlement (whether by 

7 suit or agreement and whether as lump sum or peri8 odic payments) resulting from such claim.’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 62 of the 

10 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

11 subsection (e). 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to fees and costs paid after the 

14 date of the enactment of this Act with respect to any judg15 ment or settlement occurring after such date. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 47611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19987]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-11-021]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: August 15, 2011 at 3 p.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

Matters To Be Considered

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-459 (Third Review) (Polyethylene 
Terephthalate (PET) Film from Korea). The Commission is currently 
scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to 
the Secretary of Commerce on or before August 29, 2011.
    5. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-718 (Third Review) (Glycine from China). 
The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and 
Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before 
August 30, 2011.
    6. Outstanding action jackets: none.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

     Issued: August 3, 2011.

    By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2011-19987 Filed 8-3-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P