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

----

I Informacija

Komisija

----

Menjalni tečaji evra (1)

29. julija 2004

(2004/C 194/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Vir: referenčni menjalni tečaj, ki ga objavlja ECB.

----

----

Povzetek odločb Skupnosti o dovoljenjih za promet z zdravili od 15. junija 2004 do 15. julija 2004

(Objavljeno na podlagi člena 12 oziroma člena 34 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2309/93 (1))

(2004/C 194/02)

–   Izdaja dovoljenja za promet (člen 12 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2309/93): odobrena

–   Sprememba dovoljenja za promet (člen 12 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2309/93): odobrena

–   Preklic dovoljenja za promet (člen 12 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2309/93)

----

(1)UL L 214, 24.8.1993, str. 1.

----

----

Povzetek odločb Skupnosti o dovoljenjih za promet z zdravili od 15. maja 2004 do 15. junija 2004

(Objavljeno na podlagi člena 12 oziroma člena 34 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2309/93 (1))

(2004/C 194/03)

—   Izdaja dovoljenja za promet (člen 12 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2309/93): odobrena

----

(1)UL L 214, 24.8.1993, str. 1.

----

----

NAKNADNA OBJAVA SUBVENCIJ EUROSTAT-a V LETU 2003

Informacija javnosti

(2004/C 194/04)

V skladu s členom 110(2) Finančne uredbe in člena 169 njenih pogojev za izvršitev, je javnost s tem obvestilom seznanjena z dejavnostmi, ki jih subvencionira Eurostat v teku leta 2003.

Elektronska datoteka, ki zajema zadevne dejavnosti, se nahaja v obliki seznama na strežniku EUROPA (http://europa.eu.int). Konkretno lahko pristopite k temu seznamu prek datotek „Institucije“, „Evropska Komisija“, „Statistiques“ (Statistika), „Activités d'Eurostat“ (Dejavnosti Eurostata), „Appels d'offres et subventions“ (Javni razpisi in subvencije) in nato vstopite v datoteko „Eurostat – Liste des subventions attribuées en 2003“ (Eurostat – Seznam subvencij dodeljenih v letu 2003).

Seznam vsebuje številko zadevne mape, ime in državo upravičencev, naslov dejavnosti, dodeljeni znesek in stopnjo sofinanciranja dejavnosti.

Za vse dejavnosti je bila opravljena vnaprejšnja objava.

----

----

Predhodna priglasitev koncentracije

(Št. primera COMP/M.3513 – Caterpillar/Xpart)

Primer za poenostavljeni postopek

(2004/C 194/05)

(Besedilo velja za EGP)

----

(1)UL L 24, 29.1.2004, str. 1.

(2)UL C 217, 29.7.2000, str. 32. Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 4064/89 je bila nadomeščena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 139/2004.

----
**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 Annual Report of Lannett Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Arthur P. Bedrosian, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Martin P. Galvan, the Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| 1.     |   | The   Report complies with the requirements of Section13(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. |

 

 
| Dated:   September 9, 2011 | /s/Arthur   P. Bedrosian                |
|---------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                            |                                    |
|                            | Arthur   P. Bedrosian,                  |
|                            | President   and Chief Executive Officer |
|                            |                                    |
|                            |                                    |
| Dated:   September 9, 2011 | /s/Martin   P. Galvan                   |
|                            |                                    |
|                            | Martin   P. Galvan,                     |
|                            | Vice   President of Finance and         |
|                            | Chief   Financial Officer               |

 

----
§ 102.94 Expeditious processing of Section 10(j) cases. ( a ) Whenever temporary relief or a restraining order pursuant to Section 10(j) of the Act has been procured by the Board, the complaint which has been the basis for such temporary relief or restraining order will be heard expeditiously and the case will be given priority by the Board in its successive steps following the issuance of the complaint (until ultimate enforcement or dismissal by the appropriate circuit court of appeals) over all other cases except cases of like character and cases under Section 10(l) and (m) of the Act.
( b ) In the event the Administrative Law Judge hearing a complaint, concerning which the Board has procured temporary relief or a restraining order pursuant to Section 10(j), recommends a dismissal in whole or in part of such complaint, the chief law officer will promptly suggest to the district court which issued such temporary relief or restraining order the possible change in circumstances arising out of the findings and recommendations of the Administrative Law Judge.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 16 

To make effective appointment of the Senate Legal Counsel. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To make effective appointment of the Senate Legal Counsel. 

1 Resolved, That the appointment of Morgan J. Frankel 

2 to be Senate Legal Counsel made by the President pro 

3 tempore this day is effective as of January 3, 2007, and 

4 the term of service of the appointee shall expire at the 

5 end of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
§ 38.98 Notification of Breach of Conciliation Agreement. ( a ) When it becomes known to the Director that a Conciliation Agreement has been breached, the Director may issue a Notification of Breach of Conciliation Agreement.
( b ) The Director must send a Notification of Breach of Conciliation Agreement to the Governor, the grantmaking agency, and/or other party(ies) to the Conciliation Agreement, as applicable.
§ 2200.104 Standards of conduct. ( a ) *General.* All representatives appearing before the Commission and its Judges shall comply with the letter and spirit of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association.
( b ) *Misbehavior before a Judge* — ( 1 ) *Exclusion from a proceeding.* A Judge may exclude from participation in a proceeding any person, including a party or its representative, who engages in disruptive behavior, refuses to comply with orders or rules of procedure, continuously uses dilatory tactics, refuses to adhere to standards of orderly or ethical conduct, or fails to act in good faith. The cause for the exclusion shall be stated in writing or may be stated in the record if the exclusion occurs during the course of the hearing. Where the person removed is a party's attorney or other representative, the Judge shall suspend the proceeding for a reasonable time for the purpose of enabling the party to obtain another attorney or other representative.
( 2 ) *Appeal rights if excluded.* Any attorney or other representative excluded from a proceeding by a Judge may, within 7 days of the exclusion, appeal to the Commission for reinstatement. No proceeding shall be delayed or suspended pending disposition of the appeal.
( c ) *Disciplinary action by the Commission.* If an attorney or other representative practicing before the Commission engages in unethical or unprofessional conduct or fails to comply with any rule or order of the Commission or its Judges, the Commission may, after reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after hearing, if requested, take any appropriate disciplinary action, including suspension or disbarment from practice before the Commission.
( d ) *Show cause orders.* All show cause orders issued by the Commission under paragraph (c) of this section shall be served in a manner prescribed in § 2200.7(o).
#### STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. P. G. NICHOLAS et al., Appellants.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

February 6, 1912.

The opinion of the Springfield Court of Appeals in this case (149 Mo. App. 121) is adopted as the opinion of the court.

Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit *Court.*— Ron. *Henry G. Riley,*Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

*tTere 8. Gossom*for appellants.

*B. A. McKay*for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal in this case was prosecuted to this court, but was thereafter transferred by it to the Springfield Court of Appeals under the provisions of the act of the Legislature, approved June 12, 1909. [See Laws of Missouri 1909, p. 396; see, also, sec. 39391, R. S. 1909.] In due time the cause was disposed of by the Springfield Court of Appeals through an opinion prepared by Judge Nixon of that court, as will appear by reference to State v. Nicholas et al., 149 Mo. App. 121, 130 S. W. 96. Suhse*528quently, the Supreme Court declared the said legislative act, which purported to authorize the transfer of cases from this court to the Springfield Court, to be unconstitutional. The cause was thereafter transferred by the Springfield Court of Appeals to this court on the theory that the jurisdiction of the appeal continued to reside here and the proceedings had in the Springfield Court with reference thereto were *coram non judice.*

The case has been argued and submitted here and duly considered. Upon reading the record and considering the arguments, we are persuaded that the opinion of the Springfield Court, above referred to, properly disposes of the controversy, and it is adopted as the opinion of this court. For the reasons given in that opinion the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded. It is so ordered.

All concur.
Pravia, LLC Petition to Amend Section 333 Exemption No. 11167

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0789

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

03 Aug 2015

Sir or Ma’am,

Pravia, LLC (Pravia) was issued Exemption No. 11167 to operate the eBee Ag 

Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) for the purpose of providing aerial imaging and surveying. 

Pravia herby requests to amend the exemption to include the DJI Inspire 1 UAS (DJI Inspire). 

The DJI Inspire is similar in form and function to Pravia’s current approved UAS and has 

already been approved for use in a number of current exemptions. 

Pravia will ensure that all operations conducted with the DJI Inspire will meet the 

Conditions and Limitations set forth within Exemption No. 11167 in addition to any new 

conditions and/or limitations specified in the approval of this amendment. As required by the 

Exemption, Pravia will ensure that operations are conducted in accordance with the DJI Inspire 

Operating Documents, which have been included with this request. 

DJI Inspire Operating Documents:

1. Inspire Quick Start Guide 

2. Inspire User Manual

3. Inspire Maintenance Manual 

4. Inspire Safety Guidelines

Because the requested amendment would not set any precedent or otherwise raise any 

issue, Pravia respectfully requests the FAA to consider an expeditious approval of this 

amendment. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, 

Scott Brink

Managing Partner

555 Falcon Trail 

Niceville FL 32578

970.310.1712

scott@praviallc.com
----

Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-314/04)

(2004/C 262/87)

Language of the Case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 July 2004 by the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Claus-Dieter Quassowski and Christoph von Donat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant complains, pursuant to Article 230 EC, that secondary Community law and general principles of law have been infringed, that the Commission has erred in the exercise of its discretion and that there are mistakes in the contested decision's reasoning.

By the contested decision the Commission reduced the Community assistance from the structural fund (the European Regional Development Fund) for the Objective 2 Programme 1997-1999 North Rhine-Westphalia to EUR 319 046 236.76 and refused to pay to the German authorities the balance amounting to EUR 5 488 569.24. The background to the reduction is that, compared with the indicative financing plan, recourse to the programme was lower in the case of certain measures and higher in the case of others. The balancing out did not take place within the programme's respective priorities, but at the level of the programme as a whole.

The Commission is of the view that only a transfer between measures, and not a transfer between programme priorities, is possible, or that the latter would have required the Commission first to have taken a fresh decision. In its view, this also applies to expenditure under the approved programme that turns out higher and is not linked to an application for an increase in ERDF assistance.

The German Government considers the transfers to be objectively justified. It submits that the transfers, which are insignificant in amount, help to achieve the Community's assistance objectives. There are no grounds for a reduction. In particular, the reduction in the approved ERDF assistance cannot be justified on the basis that the competent authorities and agencies in the Land North Rhine-Westphalia administered in a flexible manner the indicative financing plan for the programme for Community structural interventions in the areas falling within Objective 2 in respect of the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1999. In this regard, the reduction of the balance to be paid infringes Community law.

The German Government further submits that, by not allowing any flexibility at the level of priorities even where, at the end of a reference period, formal Commission approval can no longer be attained, the Commission inexpediently restricts the freedom of action of the Member State or the competent local authorities and agencies.

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

EUAM FISHERIES (USA), a Florida Limited Liability Company, and

XIAO LING,

Appellants,

v.

AMERICA SHENG LONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1050

[August 3, 2017]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Marina Garcia-Wood, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. CACE15-012958 (18).

Lee B. Gartner of Lee B. Gartner, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellants.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 2560.521-2 Disclosure of order and proceedings. ( a ) Notwithstanding § 2560.521-1(e)(8), the Secretary shall make available to the public final cease and desist and summary seizure orders or modifications and terminations of such final orders.
( b ) Except as prohibited by applicable law, and at his or her discretion, the Secretary may disclose the issuance of a temporary cease and desist order or summary seizure order and information and evidence of any proceedings and hearings related to an order, to any Federal, State, or foreign authorities responsible for enforcing laws that apply to MEWAs and parties associated with, or providing services to, MEWAs.
( c ) The sharing of such documents, material, or other information and evidence under this section does not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege or claim of confidentiality.
[78 FR 13805, Mar. 1, 2013]
#### § 4010.14 Penalties.

If all of the information required under this part is not provided within the specified time limit, PBGC may assess a separate penalty under ERISA section 4071 against the filer and each member of the filer's controlled group (other than an exempt entity). PBGC may also pursue other equitable or legal remedies available to it under the law.

[61 FR 34022, July 1, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 36994, July 10, 1997. Redesignated and amended at 74 FR 11035, Mar. 16, 2009; 81 FR 29766, May 13, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>





<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AND THE CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                        23,934
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 358,744
<ALLOWANCES>                  16,032
<INVENTORY>                   262,169
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              674,087
<PP&E>                        997,350
<DEPRECIATION>                559,867
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,289,487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         424,956
<BONDS>                       257,727
<COMMON>                      139,559
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    306,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,289,487
<SALES>                       2,032,915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              2,032,915
<CGS>                         1,520,736
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,520,736
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  25,813
<INCOME-PRETAX>               153,421
<INCOME-TAX>                  50,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           102,721
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  102,721
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 3.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                 3.51
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23




 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
of Lone Star Industries, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 33-55377) and S-8 (File Nos.
33-55277, 33-55261, and 33-55229) of our report, dated January 31, 1996, which
includes an explanatory paragraph related to the Company's reorganization
effective April 14, 1994, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Lone Star Industries, Inc. and Consolidated
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and for the year ended December
31, 1995, the nine months ended December 31, 1994, the three months ended March
31, 1994, and the year ended December 31, 1993, which report is included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Stamford, Connecticut
March 20, 1996
 
                                    (LOGO)
                           Printed on Recycled Paper
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

GINGER P., 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; 

AND THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA N. 

GIULIANI, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

FAMILY SERVICES; AND C. A., MINOR 

CHILD, 

Real Parties in Interest. 

No. 85002 

FILE 

NOV 1 8 2022 

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 

A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION 

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or 

prohibition challenging a district court order denying a request for 

placement of a minor child. Having considered the petition, the answers, 

the reply, and the supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our 

extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth 

Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing 

that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is 

warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 

818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an 

extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining 

whether to entertain a writ petition). 

Nothing in the supporting documents indicates that the district 

court's factual findings regarding the child's best interest, which is the main 

consideration, •were clearly erroneous or arbitrary or capricious. Philip R. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 22,-- 3(forl 
Mei-ticc4-0 J. , Sr.J. 

Stiglich 

, C.J. 

arraguirre 

v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. 223, 228-29, 416 P.3d 242, 247-48 

(2018) (explaining that in considering a placement decision in light of NRS 

128.110's familial preference, the main consideration is the child's best 

interest); see also Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 152, 161 P.3d 239, 244 

(2007) (providing that this court leaves witness credibility determinations 

to the district court). Additionally, the district court's consideration of 

petitioner's motion to intervene and be recognized as a person of special 

interest on the same date as the placement hearing does not warrant our 

extraordinary relief given that petitioner would not have been permitted to 

conduct discovery or serve subpoenas. NRS 432B.457 (permitting a person 

of special interest to be notified of plans regarding the child and to testify 

at placement hearings); see, e.g., NRCP 26 (permitting parties to conduct 

discovery). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED.1

cc: Hon. Cynthia N. Giuliani, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Rosenblum Allen Law Firm 

Burger Meyer, LLP 

Clark County District Attorney/Civil Division 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

1The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the 

decision in this matter under a general order of assignment. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1V47A 

2