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

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 775/2005

of 23 May 2005         

opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the internal market of paddy rice held by the Italian intervention agency

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in rice (1), and in particular Article 7(4) and (5) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Under the conditions laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 75/91, the Italian intervention agency shall launch a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the internal market of the quantities of paddy rice held by it, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

1.   The closing date for the submission of tenders in response to the first partial invitation to tender shall be 1 June 2005.

2.   The closing date for the submission of tenders in response to the last partial invitation to tender shall be 13 July 2005.

3.   Tenders must be lodged with the Italian intervention agency:

Article 3

As an exception to Article 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 75/91, the Italian intervention agency shall inform the Commission, no later than the Tuesday of the week following the closing date for the submission of tenders, of the quantity and average prices of the various lots sold, broken down by group where appropriate.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third 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, 23 May 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 96.

(2)OJ L 9, 12.1.1991, p. 15.

----

ANNEX

----
272P04-2

#### State v. James Allen Cook

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COAP15-290)

1. Dismissed

2. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

2. Dismissed as moot
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 130 (Thursday, July 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16995]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-383-006


Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Formerly CNG Transmission 
Corporation); Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing

June 29, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 23, 2000, Dominion Transmission, Inc. 
(DTI) (formerly CNG Transmission Corporation) tendered for filing to 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) the following 
Letter Agreement and tariff sheets for disclosure of a recently 
negotiated rate transaction:

Letter Agreement between Dominion Transmission, Inc. and PSEG Power 
NY Inc. Dated June 14, 2000
Ninth Revised Sheet No. 251 Original Sheet No. 399

    DTI requests an effective date of July 1, 2000, for this negotiated 
rate agreement.
    DTI states that copies of the filing have been served on all 
parties on the official service list created by the Secretary in this 
proceeding, DTI's customers, and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16995 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 11-9721.

#### Trzeciak *v.*State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR HUGO ALVARADO CORTEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70345

Agency No. A070-781-971

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted April 7, 2015 

Pasadena, California

Before: REINHARDT, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Victor Hugo Alvarado Cortez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen his

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

APR 20 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
abuse of discretion. Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 857 (9th Cir.

2004). We grant the petition and remand to the BIA.

We recognize equitable tolling of deadlines on motions to reopen “during

periods when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or

error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception,

fraud, or error.” Iturribarria v. I.N.S., 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA

either misunderstood or failed to consider the time sequence of Alvarado Cortez’s

contacts and follow up with One Stop Immigration Services as explained in the

statement submitted with his appeal brief. We remand so that the BIA may

“consider and address in its entirety the evidence submitted” to support Alvarado

Cortez on this issue. Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir. 2007)

(quoting Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir. 2005)); see also Sun

v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 2009) (granting petition where the BIA

made an erroneous factual assumption in its diligence analysis). 

The BIA’s decision on whether the conduct of the “notario” at One Stop

Immigration Services constitutes “exceptional circumstances” was based on In re

Compean, Bangaly & J-E-C- (Compean I), 24 I. & N. Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009),

vacated by In re Compean, Bangaly & J-E-C- (Compean II), 25 I. & N. Dec. 1, 3

2
(A.G. 2009). In light of the vacation of Compean I, we remand for consideration

under current standards.1

Finally, the BIA did not discuss Alvarado Cortez’s fear of future persecution

based on his religious belief. See Maravilla Maravilla, 381 F.3d at 858 (requiring

the BIA to “indicate with specificity that it heard and considered petitioner’s

claims”). We also remand for consideration of this claim.2

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.

1

 To the extent that the BIA relied on our decision in Hernandez v. Mukasey,

524 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2008), it failed to consider whether the “notario” on whom

Alvarado Cortez relied was an agent of an attorney, whether Alvarado Cortez

believed that the “notario” on whom he relied was an attorney or an agent of an

attorney, or whether this case is otherwise distinguishable from Hernandez.

2

 Alvarado Cortez’s motion to take judicial notice is denied as moot.

3
#### In the Matter of Donald M. Steinberg, Petitioner, *v.*William P. Meisser et al., as Commissioners of Elections of Nassau County, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

September 24, 1970.

*Lippe, Bushin <& Kaplan*for petitioner. *John P. Cleary*for Joseph Goldstein, respondent.

Joseph Liee, J.

Petitioner seeks a determination that the nominating petition designating the respondent Joseph Gold-stein .as a candidate for the Assembly of the Homeowners Independent Party is null and void. The claim is (1) that the emblem employed by the candidate is improper and violates section 20 of the Election Law; and (2) that the signatures to his nominating petitions were, obtained by misleading representations. The latter allegations were not urged nor was evidence presented to support the statements.

Section 20 provides that the emblem must distinguish the candidate and for illustration it tells us that it ‘‘ may be a star, an animal, an anchor, or any other proper symbol ’ The symbol used by the candidate on his extra line for the ballot is a representation of a high-rise apartment on which is superimposed a large *“ X*”. We have concluded that this is not a “ proper symbol ”.

Although the emblem employed may not have quite the preemptory character of the hand pointing with an index finger *(Matter of Ingraham,*121 Misc. 578), it does have a quality which, when considered together with the fact that the *‘‘*X ” is used to mark absentee and military and other paper ballots, and that the same “X” appears in various places in the voting machine, would draw particular attention to the symbol, and voters might consider it “ a positive direction to vote in the space”. Therefore it would be misleading and could confer *213an improper advantage on the party and its candidate *(Matter of Ingraham, supra).*

Further, the symbol vividly suggests an issue and in the polling place would be electioneering which is forbidden (Election Law, §§ 161, 193). It is common knowledge that high-rise apartments are a sensitive issue in many areas of Nassau County. The symbol directs the attention of those most concerned with this issue and solicits their vote. It also suggests that this candidate is opposed to such structures while his opponents, if not for them, are at the least indifferent.

However, since evidence has not been presented to support any finding with respect to the validity of the signatures on the candidate’s petitions, the Commissioners of Elections are instructed to place the candidate’s name on the ballot with the party name chosen but with another and proper symbol. The rule of *Matter of Donnellon*v. *Heffernan*(193 Misc. 97, affd. 274 App. Div. 880, affd. 298 N. Y. 656) should not be applied here, since to do so would in part disfranchise the signers of the petition.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4873 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4873

  To provide authority to executive departments and agencies to issue 
    rulings respecting application of laws under their jurisdiction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 1994

  Mr. McHale introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide authority to executive departments and agencies to issue 
    rulings respecting application of laws under their jurisdiction.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Compliance Assistance 
Act''.

SEC. 2. RULINGS.

    Section 301 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The head'',
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b)(1) The head of each executive department and executive agency 
may, upon request, issue a ruling to any individual or entity 
respecting the application of the laws under the jurisdiction of such 
department or agency to such individual or entity on the basis of 
information provided by such individual or entity.
    ``(2)(A) The head of an executive department or executive agency 
shall establish a program requiring the payment of user fees for 
requests to the department or agency for a ruling under paragraph (1).
    ``(B) The program established under subparagraph (A) shall require 
that the amount of the fee charged shall be determined after taking 
into account the average time for, and difficulty of, complying with 
requests for rulings and shall be payable in advance. The program shall 
provide for such exemptions and reduced fees under the program as the 
head of the executive department or executive agency determines to be 
appropriate.'',
            (3) by inserting at the end of the section heading ``and 
        rulings'', and
            (4) in the item relating to section 301 in the table of 
        sections, by inserting at the end of the item ``and rulings''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 11-5970.

#### Videau *v.*Harrington, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Notice of Adoption New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

6 NYCRR Part 212, General Process Emission Sources

Pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law Sections 1-0101, 1- 0303, 3-0301, 19-0103, 19- 0105, 19-0107, 19-0301, 19-0303, 19-0305, 19-0311, 71-2103 and 71-21 05, the New York State Department of Envir onmental Conservation hereby gi ves notice of the following:

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF RULES on Augus t 31, 2010, filed with the New York State Department of State on August 31, 2010, to be effective September 30, 2010, to amend existing 6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR ) Part 212, General Process Emission Sources.

Part 212 is being revised to add a new section, 212.12, to include new requirements for the control of emissions of oxid es of nitrogen (NOx) at hot mix asphalt production plants throughout the state. These new requirements incorporate operational practices and the potential installation of low NOx burner technology to reduce emissions from these sources. Compliance with the operat ional practices will begin in 2011, while plants have an extended compliance period for the low NOx burner anal ysis, beginning in 2012 and concluding in 2020.

The adoption of this proposed regul ation is a necessary part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which New York has developed to demons trate compliance with the Clean Air Act and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations. Consequentl y, the SIP will be revised to incorporate the revisions to Part 212

.

For further information, contact: Scott GriffinNYSDEC, Division of Air Resources 625 Broadway, Alban y, NY 12233-3251 (518) 402-8396 E-mail: airregs@gw.dec.state.ny.us
No. 10-10804.

#### Critchley *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 5.65 Defective applications. ( a ) Applications that are defective with respect to completeness of answers to required questions, execution or other matters of a purely formal character may be found to be unacceptable for filing by the Commission, and may be returned to the applicant with a brief statement as to the omissions.
( b ) If an applicant is requested by the Commission to file any documents or information not included in the prescribed application form, failure to comply with such request will constitute a defect in the application.
( c ) Applications not in accordance with the Commission's rules, regulations, or other requirements will be considered defective unless accompanied either by: ( 1 ) A petition to amend any rule, regulation, or requirement with which the application is in conflict; or
( 2 ) A request for waiver of any rule, regulation, or requirement with which the application is in conflict. Such request shall show the nature of the waiver desired and set forth the reasons in support thereof.
[78 FR 25162, Apr. 29, 2013]
#### § 73.4005 Advertising—refusal to sell.

See 412 U.S. 94 (Supreme Court, 1973).

[44 FR 36388, June 22, 1979]
§ 51.311 Nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements. ( a ) The quality of an unbundled network element, as well as the quality of the access to the unbundled network element, that an incumbent LEC provides to a requesting telecommunications carrier shall be the same for all telecommunications carriers requesting access to that network element.
( b ) To the extent technically feasible, the quality of an unbundled network element, as well as the quality of the access to such unbundled network element, that an incumbent LEC provides to a requesting telecommunications carrier shall be at least equal in quality to that which the incumbent LEC provides to itself. If an incumbent LEC fails to meet this requirement, the incumbent LEC must prove to the state commission that it is not technically feasible to provide the requested unbundled network element, or to provide access to the requested unbundled network element, at a level of quality that is equal to that which the incumbent LEC provides to itself.
( c ) Previous successful access to an unbundled element at a particular point in a network, using particular facilities, is substantial evidence that access is technically feasible at that point, or at substantially similar points, in networks employing substantially similar facilities. Adherence to the same interface or protocol standards shall constitute evidence of the substantial similarity of network facilities.
( d ) Previous successful provision of access to an unbundled element at a particular point in a network at a particular level of quality is substantial evidence that access is technically feasible at that point, or at substantially similar points, at that level of quality.
[61 FR 45619, Aug. 29, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 52294, Sept. 2, 2003]
§ 8.218 Recognition of CyberLAB accreditation bodies. ( a ) A party wishing to become a laboratory accreditation body recognized by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB or Bureau) must submit a written request to the Chief of PSHSB requesting such recognition. PSHSB will make a determination based on the information provided in support of the request for recognition.
( b ) Applicants shall provide the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section as evidence of their credentials and qualifications to perform accreditation of laboratories that test equipment to Commission requirements, consistent with the requirements of § 8.217(e). PSHSB may request additional information, or showings, as needed, to determine the applicant's credentials and qualifications. ( 1 ) Successful completion of an ISO/IEC 17011 peer review, such as being a signatory to an accreditation agreement that is acceptable to the Commission.
( 2 ) Experience with the accreditation of conformity assessment testing laboratories to ISO/IEC 17025.
( 3 ) Accreditation personnel/assessors with specific technical experience on the Commission cybersecurity certification rules and requirements.
( 4 ) Procedures and policies developed for the accreditation of testing laboratories for FCC cybersecurity certification programs.
No. 11-9423.

#### Downs *v.*Bellnier, Superintendent, Marcy Correctional Facility.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 4.7


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT


This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”)
to Stock Purchase Agreement is made as of February 8, 2007 by and between
Biovail Laboratories International SRL, an International Society with
Restricted Liability under the laws of Barbados (“Purchaser”), and
Depomed, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”).


BACKGROUND


A.                                   Purchaser (as the successor in interest to
Biovail Laboratories Incorporated) and the Company are parties to that certain Stock
Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 28, 2002 (the “Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used here without
definition have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.


B.                                     Purchaser and the Company desire to amend the
Agreement as set forth herein.


Accordingly,
for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


1.               Amendments.


1.1                                 Article 3.  Section 3.01(a), Section
3.01(c), Section 3.01(d), Section 3.02, Section and Section 3.03 are hereby
deleted.


1.2                                 Section 6.01.     Section 6.01 is hereby deleted.


2.               Miscellaneous.


2.1                                 Full Force and Effect. 
Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement will continue in full
force and effect in accordance with the provisions thereof on the date hereof.


2.2                                 Counterparts.  This
Amendment may be signed in one or more counterparts, all of which will be
considered one and the same instrument.


[signature page follows]













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Purchaser
and the Company have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the day and
year first above written.


	
  DEPOMED, INC.:

  	
  BIOVAIL LABORATORIES

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  INTERNATIONAL SRL:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Matthew M. Gosling

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Michel Chouinard

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Matthew M. Gosling

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Michel Chouinard

  
	
  Title:

  	
  VP & General Counsel

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Chief Operating Officer

  
											



 



 2
----

            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE         

No 17/2005

            8 February 2005         

amending Annex XIV (Competition) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Point 11c (Commission Regulation (EC) No 823/2000) of Annex XIV to the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 463/2004 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 9 February 2005, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1), or on the day of entry into force of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 130/2004 of 24 September 2004, whichever is the later.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 February 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Richard WRIGHT            

----

(1)OJ L 64,10.3.2005, p. 57.

(2)OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 23.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

----
AVIATION 

ADVISORS, LLC · 

RECEI\lEO 

February 23, 2015 HEARING DOCKET 

Re: In the Matter of Laurel Avionics Company, Inc., Docket No. F AA-2015-0202 

Dear Parties: 

Please note that the mailing address for Respondent's Counsel is incorrectly stated on certain 

documents. The correct address is: 

John V. Sabel 

Aviation Advisors, LLC 

2512 Minton Drive 

Moon Township, PA 15108-9207 

Thank you, 

r\lw 

John V. Sabel, Esq. 

Counsel for Respondent