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

            COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1113/2005

of 12 July 2005         

terminating the new exporter review of Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate (UAN) originating, inter alia, in Algeria

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

1.   MEASURES IN FORCE

2.   CURRENT INVESTIGATION

2.1.   Request for a review

2.2.   Initiation of a ‘new exporter’ review

2.3.   Product concerned

2.4.   Parties concerned

2.5.   Investigation period

3.   RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

4.   CONCLUSION

5.   RETROACTIVE LEVYING OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY

6.   DISCLOSURE

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   The new exporter review initiated by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1795/2004 is hereby terminated.

2.   The duty applicable according to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000 to all companies in Algeria, is hereby levied retroactively on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution which have been registered pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1795/2004.

3.   Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2005.

For the Council

The President

G. BROWN            

----

(1)OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(2)OJ L 238, 22.9.2000, p. 15. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1675/2003 (OJ L 238, 25.9.2003, p. 4).

(3)OJ L 317, 16.10.2004, p. 20.

----
Revolving Credit Note



 Exhibit 10.5 
 REVOLVING CREDIT NOTE 
  

			
	 $20,637,500
	  	January 31, 2007

 On or before the Maturity Date, FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), promises to pay to the order of WB QT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Lender”) at Minneapolis, Minnesota, care of the Agent in lawful money of the United
States of America so much of the sum of Twenty Million Six Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($20,637,500), as may from time to time have been advanced by Lender to the Company and then be outstanding hereunder pursuant to the
Credit Agreement dated as of January 31, 2007 made by and among the Company and certain lenders signatory thereto, including the Lender, and WB QT, LLC as Agent for such lenders, as the same may be amended or otherwise modified from time to
time (“Credit Agreement”), together with interest thereon as hereinafter set forth. 
 Each of the Revolving Credit Advances
made hereunder shall bear interest at the interest rate from time to time applicable thereto under the Credit Agreement or as otherwise determined thereunder, and interest shall be computed, assessed and payable as set forth in the Credit Agreement.

 This Note is a Revolving Credit Note under which Revolving Credit Advances, repayments and readvances may be made from time to time, by
Lender, but only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement. This Note evidences borrowings under, is subject to, is secured in accordance with, and may be accelerated or prepaid under, the terms of the Credit Agreement to
which reference is hereby made. Capitalized terms used herein, except as defined to the contrary, shall have the meanings given them in the Credit Agreement. 
 This Note shall be interpreted and the rights of the parties hereunder shall be determined under the laws of, and enforceable in, the State of Minnesota. 
 Company hereby waives presentment for payment, demand, protest and notice of dishonor and nonpayment of this Note and agrees that no obligation hereunder
shall be discharged by reason of any extension, indulgence, release, or forbearance granted by any holder of this Note to any party now or hereafter liable hereon or any present or subsequent owner of any property, real or personal, which is now or
hereafter security for this Note. 
 Nothing herein shall limit any right granted Lender by any other instrument or by law. 
 [Signature Follows On Succeeding Page] 







 QUANTUM FUEL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES WORLDWIDE, INC. 
  

			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Kenneth R. Lombardo

	 Name:
	 	Kenneth R. Lombardo
	 Its:
	 	General Counsel

 [Signature page to Revolving Credit Note] 
  

 2
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 48942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7092]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

[USITC SE-06-051]

Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date:  September 1, 2006 at 9:30 a.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. Agenda for future meetings: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. No. 701-TA-442 and 443 and 731-TA-1095-1097 (Final) 
(Certain Lined Paper School Supplies from China, India, and 
Indonesia)--briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled 
to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the 
Secretary of Commerce on or before September 21, 2006).
    5. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-703 and 705 (Second Review) (Furfuryl Alcohol 
from China and Thailand)--briefing and vote. (The Commission is 
currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' 
opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before September 13, 2006).
    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 17, 2006.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-7092 Filed 8-18-06; 11:24 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
§ 73.45 AM antenna systems. ( a ) All applicants for new, additional, or different AM station facilities and all licensees requesting authority to change the transmitting system site of an existing station must specify an antenna system, the efficiency of which complies with the requirements for the class and power of station. (See §§ 73.186 and 73.189.) ( 1 ) An application for authority to install an AM broadcast antenna must specify a definite site and include full details of the antenna system design and expected performance.
( 2 ) All data necessary to show compliance with the terms and conditions of the construction permit must be filed with the application for the station license to cover the construction. If the station has constructed a directional antenna, a directional proof of performance must be filed. See §§ 73.150 through 73.157.
( b ) The simultaneous use of a common antenna or antenna structure by more than one AM station or by a station of any other type or service may be authorized provided: ( 1 ) Engineering data are submitted showing that satisfactory operation of each station will be obtained without adversely affecting the operation of the other station(s).
( 2 ) The minimum field strength for each AM station complies with § 73.189(b).
( c ) Should any changes be made or otherwise occur which would possibly alter the resistance of the antenna system, the licensee must commence the determination of the operating power by a method described in § 73.51(a)(1) or
( d ) . (If the changes are due to the addition of antennas to the AM tower, see § 1.30003.) Upon completion of any necessary repairs or adjustments, or upon completion of authorized construction or modifications, the licensee must make a new determination of the antenna resistance using the procedures described in § 73.54. Operating power should then be determined by a direct method as described in § 73.51. Notification of the value of resistance of the antenna system must be filed with the FCC in Washington, DC as follows: ( 1 ) Whenever the measurements show that the antenna or common point resistance differs from that shown on the station authorization by more than 2%, FCC Form 302 must be filed with the information and measurement data specified in § 73.54(d).
( 2 ) Whenever AM stations use direct reading power meters pursuant to § 73.51, a letter notification to the FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau, must be filed in accordance with § 73.54(e).
[43 FR 53735, Nov. 17, 1978, as amended at 45 FR 28141, Apr. 28, 1980; 47 FR 8589, Mar. 1, 1982; 50 FR 32416, Aug. 12, 1985; 51 FR 2707; Jan. 21, 1986; 51 FR 26250, July 22, 1986; 63 FR 33875, June 22, 1998; 67 FR 13231, Mar. 21, 2002; 78 FR 66298, Nov. 5, 2013]
# Comments on: Announcement of Chief Judge Transition at the Federal Circuit
No. 10-10745.

#### Griffith *v.*Bird et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[112th Congress Public Law 156]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 1212]]

Public Law 112-156
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as the ``Warren 
     Lindley Post Office''. <<NOTE: Aug. 10, 2012 -  [H.R. 1369]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. WARREN LINDLEY POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as the 
``Warren Lindley Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Warren 
Lindley Post Office''.

    Approved August 10, 2012.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1369:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012):
            July 23, considered and passed House.
            Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 87.307 Cooperative use of facilities. ( a ) The Commission will license only one flight test land station per airport, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
( b ) Flight test land stations located at an airport are required to provide service without discrimination, on a cooperative maintenance basis, to anyone eligible for a flight test station license.
( c ) When the licensee of a flight test land station intends to conduct flight tests at an area served by another flight test land station, which may result in interference, the licensees must coordinate their schedules in advance. If no agreement is reached, the Commission will determine the time division upon request by either licensee.
( d ) Applicants for an additional flight test land station at an airport where such a station is already authorized may be required to submit a factual showing to include the following: ( 1 ) Reasons why shared use of the currently licensed flight test land station is not possible; and
( 2 ) Results of coordination with the current licensee of the flight test station at the airport demonstrating that an additional station can be accommodated without significant degradation of the reliability of existing facilities.
[53 FR 28940, Aug. 1, 1988, as amended at 63 FR 68958, Dec. 14, 1998]
exv10w19



 





Exhibit 10.19




	 	 	 
	 

	 

	 	LIN TV Corp
	Notice of Grant of Stock Options

and Option Agreement

	 	ID: 05-0501252

Four Richmond Square

Providence RI 02906
	 
	 	 
	 







	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name

	 	Option Number:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Address

	 	Plan:
	 	02SP	 	 
	 

	 	ID:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 






Effective                     , you have been granted a(n) Non-Qualified Stock Option to buy                       shares
of LIN TV Corp (the Company) stock at $x.xxxx per share.



The total option price of the shares granted is $xx,xxx.xx.



Shares in each period will become fully vested on the date shown.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Shares	 	Vest Type	 	Full Vest	 	Expiration
	xx,xxx

	 	On Vest Date
	 	mm/dd/yyyy
	 	mm/ddyyyy
	xx,xxx

	 	On Vest Date
	 	mm/dd/yyyy
	 	mm/ddyyyy
	xx,xxx

	 	On Vest Date
	 	mm/dd/yyyy
	 	mm/ddyyyy
	xx,xxx

	 	On Vest Date
	 	mm/dd/yyyy
	 	mm/dd/yyyy






	 
	 

	 
	By your signature and the Company’s signature below, you and the Company agree that these options
are granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the 2002 LIN TV Corp. Stock Plan as
amended and this Option Agreement.

	 
	 








	 	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 	 	 
	LIN TV Corp

	 	Date
	 
	 	 
	 	 	 
	Name

	 	Date






	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Date:
	 	1/4/2007
	 

	 	Time:
	 	11:03:36AM
No. 11-10129.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 61.51 Scope.

The rules in this subpart apply to tariffs filed by issuing carriers, with the exception of the informational tariffs filed pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 226(h)(1)(A), unless otherwise noted.

[76 FR 43215, July 20, 2011]
193A15

#### State v. Allen Ray West

1. Def’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA14-983)

1.-

2. State’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

2. Allowed
Order filed May 28 , 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00936

- CR

____________ DARRYL KENT AUTHORLE E , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 240766



### ORDER
Appellant’s appointed counsel
, Kelly Ann Smith
, filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967 ). On March 31, 2015 , we informed counse l that in order t o comply
with Anders , the Court of Criminal Appeals now requires counsel notify appellant of his right to access the appellate record and provide him with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State
, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex.
Cri m. App. 2014). Counsel was requested to provide the court with an amendedtransmittal letter notifying appellant of his right to access the appellate record and

to provid e a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. An example of
a form moti on was attached. The court requested counsel to file the amended transmittal letter within 10 days

. As of this date, no response has been filed. Accordingly, we order counsel

to provide the court with an amended transmittal letter notifying appellant of his right to access the appellate record and to provid e a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record within 10 days of the date of this order . If counsel fails to comply with Kelly , h er brief may be stricken and the appeal abated for appointment of new counsel.

PER CURIAM
#### § 11.41 Participation in EAS.

All EAS Participants specified in § 11.11 are categorized as Participating National (PN) sources, and must have immediate access to an EAS Operating Handbook.

[77 FR 16704, Mar. 22, 2012]
§ 27.51 Equipment authorization. ( a ) Each transmitter utilized for operation under this part must be of a type that has been authorized by the Commission under its certification procedure.
( b ) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in these services may request equipment authorization following the procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. Equipment authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an applicant for a station authorization by following the procedures set forth in part 2 of this chapter.
[65 FR 3147, Jan. 20, 2000]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          14,708
<SECURITIES>                                     8,312
<RECEIVABLES>                                      485
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,623
<PP&E>                                           3,582
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,159
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       105,285
<OTHER-SE>                                    (92,833)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,394
<SALES>                                          7,473
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,121
<CGS>                                            1,374
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,846
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,304
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,595)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,595)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.61)
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-8800.

#### Thomas *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
Original

No. 81-214

#### Connie George *& a.*v. New Hampshire Department of Education

May 17, 1982

*Linda L. Murtha,*general counsel, State Employees’ Association of New Hampshire, Inc., by brief for the petitioners.

*Gregory H. Smith,*attorney general *(James E. Townsend,*assistant attorney general, on the brief), by brief for the State of New Hampshire.

Per curiam.

In the spring and summer of 1980, the seven petitioners, classified State employees teaching at the New Hampshire Technical Institute, sought promotion to a higher instructional level. Dr. David Larrabee, president of the Institute, denied their promotions, in part because of budgetary constraints arising from a “top heavy” professional staff. The petitioners’ appeal to the personnel commission was unsuccessful, as is this appeal.

*435 Nothing in our State law or policy prevents a supervisor from denying classified employees promotion to a higher grade because of budgetary restraints. *See Petition of Gorham School Board,*121 N.H. 878, 881, 436 A.2d 74, 76 (1981). There is no *per se*vested property right in such employment. *Desmarais v. State Personnel Comm’n,*117 N.H. 582, 588, 378 A.2d 1361, 1364 (1977). Furthermore, even ostensibly “qualified” candidates for advancement may be denied promotion if the appointing authority finds certain professional and personal qualities to be lacking. *See Appeal of Golding,*121 N.H. 1055, 1058-59, 438 A.2d 292, 294 (1981). Dr. Larrabee testified that three of the seven promotions were denied on the basis of merit considerations.

 In reviewing the decision of the commission on this petition for a writ of certiorari, RSA 490:4 (Supp. 1979), the “only question before us is whether the commission has acted illegally in respect to jurisdiction, authority or observance of the law, thereby arriving at a conclusion which could not legally or reasonably be made.” *Tasker v. N.H. Personnel Comm’n,*115 N.H. 204, 206, 338 A.2d 543, 544 (1975). We conclude that the decision below was not illegal or unreasonable.

*Petition dismissed.*
#### HOUSTON PETROLEUM CO., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS CREDIT ASSOCIATION, INC., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 83, *A. 2d*239.

*Messrs. Stein Stein*and *Mr. William G. Nowels*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Koestler <& Koestler*for the respondent.

December 3, 1951.

Granted.
[Civ. No. 1495.

Second Appellate District.

September 8, 1914.]

#### C. E. A. BRUNSON, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA (a Municipal Corporation), Respondent.

Appeal—Order Sustaining Demurrer not Appealable—Dismissal oe Appeal.—No appeal lies from an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, and if such appeal is attempted, it will be dismissed.

Id.—Order Sustaining Demurrer—How Beviewable.—The only method of review in such case is through an appeal from the final judgment, if unfavorable, thereafter entered in the action itself.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustaining a demurrer. Chas. Wellborn, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

E. Burton Ceruti, for Appellant.

Hutton, Jensen *&*Fogel, for Respondent.

SHAW, J.

The appeal is from “the whole of that certain order made and entered in this action by said court on the twenty-ninth day of December, 1913, sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s amended complaint on file herein, without leave to amend.” No appeal lies from an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963.) “The only method of review of such proceedings here is through an appeal from the final judgment thereafter entered in the action itself, if such judgment be unfavorable.” *(Ashley*v. *Olmsted,*54 Cal. 616; *Agard*v. *Valencia,*39 Cal. 292; *Hibberd*v. *Smith,*39 Cal. 145.) The record discloses no judgment entered in the action from which an appeal could be prosecuted.

The appeal purporting to have been taken from the order sustaining the demurrer is dismissed.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.