alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 12006E/PRO/16 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E/PRO/16

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - D. Protocols annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community - Protocol (No 16) on the acquisition of property in Denmark (1992) **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0255 - 0255 *

Protocol (No 16)

on the acquisition of property in Denmark (1992)

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

DESIRING to settle certain particular problems relating to Denmark,

HAVE AGREED upon the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community:

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Treaty, Denmark may maintain the existing legislation on the acquisition of second homes.

--------------------------------------------------
```

[108th Congress Public Law 182]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ182.108]

[[Page 117 STAT. 2649]]

Public Law 108-182
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To ensure that a public safety officer who suffers a fatal heart attack 
 or stroke while on duty shall be presumed to have died in the line of 
          duty for purposes of public safety officer survivor 
             benefits. <<NOTE: Dec. 15, 2003 -  [S. 459]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Hometown Heroes 
Survivors Benefits Act of 2003.>> 

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 42 USC 3711 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits 
Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FATAL HEART ATTACK OR STROKE ON DUTY PRESUMED TO BE DEATH 
                    IN LINE OF DUTY FOR PURPOSES OF PUBLIC SAFETY 
                    OFFICER SURVIVOR BENEFITS.

    Section 1201 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(k) For purposes of this section, if a public safety officer dies 
as the direct and proximate result of a heart attack or stroke, that 
officer shall be presumed to have died as the direct and proximate 
result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty, if--
            ``(1) that officer, while on duty--
                    ``(A) engaged in a situation, and such engagement 
                involved nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical law 
                enforcement, fire suppression, rescue, hazardous 
                material response, emergency medical services, prison 
                security, disaster relief, or other emergency response 
                activity; or
                    ``(B) participated in a training exercise, and such 
                participation involved nonroutine stressful or strenuous 
                physical activity;
            ``(2) that officer died as a result of a heart attack or 
        stroke suffered--
                    ``(A) while engaging or participating as described 
                under paragraph (1);
                    ``(B) while still on that duty after so engaging or 
                participating; or
                    ``(C) not later than 24 hours after so engaging or 
                participating; and
            ``(3) such presumption is not overcome by competent medical 
        evidence to the contrary.

[[Page 117 STAT. 2650]]

    ``(l) For purposes of subsection (k), `nonroutine stressful or 
strenuous physical' excludes actions of a clerical, administrative, or 
nonmanual nature.''.

    Approved December 15, 2003.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 459:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 149 (2003):
            May 15, considerd and passed Senate.
            Nov. 21, considered and passed House, amended.
            Nov. 25, Senate concurred in House amendment.

                                  <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 12006E211 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E211

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Five - Institutions of the Community - TITLE I - Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1 - The institutions - Section 3 - The Commission - Article 211 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0138 - 0139 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0119 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0266 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0059 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Article 211

In order to ensure the proper functioning and development of the common market, the Commission shall:

- ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied,

- formulate recommendations or deliver opinions on matters dealt with in this Treaty, if it expressly so provides or if the Commission considers it necessary,

- have its own power of decision and participate in the shaping of measures taken by the Council and by the European Parliament in the manner provided for in this Treaty,

- exercise the powers conferred on it by the Council for the implementation of the rules laid down by the latter.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12008E/AFI/DCL/51 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E/AFI/DCL/51

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - DECLARATIONS annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007 - B. DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROTOCOLS ANNEXED TO THE TREATIES - 51. Declaration by the Kingdom of Belgium on national Parliaments **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0355 - 0355 *

51. Declaration by the Kingdom of Belgium on national Parliaments

Belgium wishes to make clear that, in accordance with its constitutional law, not only the Chamber of Representatives and Senate of the Federal Parliament but also the parliamentary assemblies of the Communities and the Regions act, in terms of the competences exercised by the Union, as components of the national parliamentary system or chambers of the national Parliament.

--------------------------------------------------
835 P.2d 1281

#### STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William Mann NOBLES, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19390.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Idaho Falls,

May 1992 Term.

July 9, 1992.

*471Johnson Law Office, Idaho Falls, for defendant-appellant. David A. Johnson, argued.

Larry EchoHawk, Atty. Gen., and Michael A. Henderson, (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

JOHNSON, Justice.

William Mann Nobles, III, appealed the trial court’s denial of Nobles’ motion to suppress. We assigned the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. *State v. Nobles,*122 Idaho 509, 835 P.2d 1320 (App.1991). We granted Nobles' request for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision.

We have reviewed and considered the briefs, the record, the transcript, and the Court of Appeals’ opinion. We have also listened to and considered the oral arguments presented to us. We concur with the Court of Appeals’ decision with an additional rationale that supports their decision.

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court had found that Nobles’ confession to his parole officer was voluntary and, therefore, that the second confession was not the fruit of a poisonous tree. The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court implicitly found that Nobles gave both confessions voluntarily because of the trial court’s conclusion that under the “totality of the circumstances” the second confession was admissible.

We conclude that the trial court’s implicit finding of voluntariness is further demonstrated by the trial court’s statement that Nobles’ confession to his parole officer could be used for impeachment. The use of this confession would have been admissible to impeach Nobles only if the confession were voluntary, although it was given without the benefit of *Miranda*warnings. *Harris v. New York,*401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971); *see also State v. Moulds,*105 Idaho 880, 884, 891, 673 P.2d 1074, 1078, 1085 (Ct.App.1983).

BAKES, C.J., BISTLINE and McDEVITT, JJ., and CAREY, J. Pro Tem., concur.
Hillsborough,

No. 4728.

#### Maurice D. Shapiro *& a. v.*National Fire Insurance Company.

Argued May 5, 1959.

Decided June 2, 1959.

*113
      *Maurice D. Stein*(by brief and orally), for the plaintiffs.

*H. Thorton Lorimer*and *G. Wells Anderson (Mr. Anderson*orally), for the defendant.

Blandin, J.

The issue presented is whether there was evidence to support the conclusion of the Trial Court that there was no mutual mistake of fact to warrant reformation of a comprehensive liability policy issued to Dr. Pearl Goodman Gribetz. We agree with the contention of the plaintiffs, Maurice D. and Hannah G. Shapiro, that their failure, and that of the Gribetzes, to read the policy is not decisive of their right to reformation. *Hould*v. *Company,*83 N. H. 474, 475. The record is plain that the Court, in denying the petition, did not base its decree on this ground, but because, among other reasons, it found that there was no mutual mistake of fact. It has been consistently held here “that to warrant a decree for reformation the ‘mistake must be made out in the most clear and decided manner, and to the entire satisfaction of the court, and especially, must the proofs be clear and convincing, when the mistake is denied in the answer.’ ” *Gagnon*v. *Pronovost,*97 N. H. 58, 60, and cases cited. The Court’s finding, in the light of this principle on the record before us was amply supported by the evidence, and it follows that the plaintiffs cannot prevail upon this ground. *McLane*v. *Robinson Co.,*95 N. H. 447.

They further placed reliance upon the claim that where, through the insurer’s fault, the policy does not include the intended coverage, it may be reformed, citing 7 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, s. 4256, *p.*12, and *Barrette*v. *Company,*79 N. H. 59, 61. We have no quarrel with these authorities, but they do not appear applicable here in the face of the Court’s findings. In the *Barrette*case there was evidence that the company’s agent misrepresented to the insured the contents of the policy. The court so *114found and allowed recovery. In the present situation, the Court has concluded that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the defendant and no justifiable reliance by the plaintiffs upon any conduct of it or its agent. *Cf. Hould*v. *Company,*83 N. H. 474, 476,. If it could be argued that the agency was not as alert as might be desired in caring for its customers’ interests, a finding by the Court that it negligently or even innocently induced a mistake on the part of the insured *(cf. Rickle*v. *Mills,*93 N. H. 191) was not compelled as a matter of law. The plaintiffs’ contention therefore fails. *McLane*v. *Robinson Co.,*95 N. H. 447; see *Margolis*v. *Insurance Company,*100 N. H. 303, 308. An examination of the record discloses no other exceptions of merit and the order is

*Decree affirmed.*

All concurred.
Exhibit 10.26
 EXECUTION VERSION
 
 RENTECH ENERGY MIDWEST CORPORATION 
10877 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 710
Los Angeles, CA 90024
    
    As of August 11, 2009
 RENTECH ENERGY MIDWEST CORPORATION  Waiver and Amendment Letter
  Credit Agreement Borrower Holdings Credit Suisse Agents  Waiver Letter
 Notes Exchange Shares Common
Stock Exchange
 (i)
    
    the discount of the Exchange Shares issued in such exchange transaction to the Trading Price
(as hereinafter defined) of the Common Stock shall be less than the discount of the Notes
being exchanged to the face amount of such Notes. Trading Price shall mean the
volume-weighted average sales price for the Common Stock on the NYSE AMEX LLC, New York Stock
Exchange, NASDAQ Capital Market, NASDAQ Global Market, NASDAQ Global Select Market or other
market or exchange on which the Common Stock is listed or traded as reported by Bloomberg
Financial Markets (or a comparable reporting service of national reputation selected by the
Borrower and reasonably acceptable to the Administrative Agent if Bloomberg Financial Markets
is not then reporting sales prices of such security) for the ten (10) consecutive trading days
immediately preceding (but not including) the date of such exchange transaction; and
 (ii)
    
    the consummation of each exchange transaction shall comply in all material respects with all
applicable requirements of law, including without limitation the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the rules and regulations thereunder; and
 (iii)
    
    the aggregate amount up to 50,000,000 shares of Common Stock for the Exchange shall not be
exceeded; and
 (iv)
    
    theAdministrative Agent shall receive final executed copies of the exchange offer documents and
other transaction documents pertaining to each exchange transaction (the Exchange Documents)
accompanied by a certificate, in a form satisfactory to the Administrative Agent,




---



##### 



Schedule 3.17 Schedule 3.17.
         2




---



##### 



Very truly yours,CREDIT SUISSE, CAYMAN ISLANDS BRANCH,
as Administrative Agent and Collateral AgentBy:
    
    /s/ Vanessa GomezName: Vanessa GomezTitle: DirectorBy:
    
    /s/ John D. TorontoName: John D. TorontoTitle: DirectorCREDIT SUISSE LOAN FUNDING LLC,
as LenderBy:
    
    /s/ Robert FranzName: Robert FranzTitle: Managing DirectorBy:
    
    /s/ Kenneth HoffmanName: Kenneth HoffmanTitle: Managing DirectorBLT II LLC,
as LenderBy:
    
    /s/ Gil GolanName: Gil GolanTitle: Authorized SignatorySOLUS CORE OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND LTD.,
as LenderBy:
    
    /s/ Chris BondyName: Chris BondyTitle: Attorney in Fact




---



##### 



CREDIT SUISSE, CAYMAN ISLANDS BRANCH,
as LenderBy:
    
    /s/ Robert HealeyName: Robert HealeyTitle: DirectorBy:
    
    /s/ Michael WotanowskiName: Michael WotanowskiTitle: Director




---



##### 



RENTECH ENERGY MIDWEST CORPORATION,
as BorrowerBy:
    
    /s/ Dan J. CohrsName: Dan J. CohrsTitle: Vice President & TreasurerRENTECH, INC.,
as HoldingsBy:
    
    /s/ Dan J. CohrsName: Dan J. CohrsTitle: Executive Vice President & CFO
#### § 1211.210 Military and merchant marine educational institutions.

These Title IX regulations do not apply to an educational institution whose primary purpose is the training of individuals for a military service of the United States or for the merchant marine.
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Annual Report of AEI Net Lease  Income  &
Growth  Fund XIX Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on  Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President  of  AEI
Fund  Management XIX, Inc., the Managing General Partner  of  the
Partnership, and Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI
Fund  Management XIX, Inc., each certify, pursuant to  18  U.S.C.
1350,  as  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The  Report  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
          Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act
          of 1934; and

     2.   The   information  contained  in  the   Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XIX, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              January 7, 2008


                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XIX, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              January 7, 2008
# EUR-Lex - 11985I349 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11985I349

**DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE ACCESSION OF THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN AND THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC TO THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ACT CONCERNING THE CONDITIONS OF ACCESSION OF THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN AND THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC AND THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TREATIES, ARTICLE 349 **

*
Official Journal L 302 , 15/11/1985 P. 0126 *

++++

Article 349

1 . Fishing by Portuguese vessels shall be restricted to ICES divisions V b , VI , VII , VIII a , b and d , excluding , during the period from the date of accession to 31 December 1995 , the zone situated to the south of latitude 56 * 30'N , to the east of longitude 12 * W and to the north of latitude 50 * 30'N , and within the limits and under the conditions defined in paragraphs 2 , 3 and 4 .

2 . Fishing possibilities limited to catches of blue whiting and horse mackerel , the corresponding number of vessels and their procedures for access and control shall be fixed annually in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 170/83 , and for the first time before 1 January 1986 .

3 . In addition , fishing possibilities for species which are not subject to the total allowable catch system , hereinafter called " the TAC " , and the corresponding number of vessels may be determined in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 170/83 on the basis of the existing situation of Portuguese fishing activities in the waters of the Community as at present constituted , throughout the period immediately preceding accession , and of the need to ensure the conservation of stocks as well as taking into account limits imposed on fishing by vessels of the present Member States in Portuguese waters for similar species .

4 . The conditions for the exercice of specialized fisheries activity shall conform with those provided for fishing of the same species , in Article 160 .

5 . Provisions aimed at ensuring that operators comply with the rules provided for in this Article , including those aimed at the possibility of not authorizing the vessel concerned to fish for a certain period shall be adopted before 1 January 1986 according to the procedure provided for in Article 11 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 170/83 .

The technical procedures which correspond to those referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 163 ( 3 ) shall be adopted before 1 January 1986 in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 14 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 170/83 .

6 . The detailed rules for applying this Article shall be adopted before 1 January 1986 , in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 14 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 170/83 .
§ 261.103 Basis for determination of a U.S. Standard for Grades. ( a ) To address the inherently distinct and dissimilar attributes found in the fishery product groups, each standard for grades should have a different scope and product description, product forms, sample sizes, definition of defects, etc. The Secretary will make the final determination regarding the content of a U.S. Standard for Grades.
( b ) A proposal for a new or revised U.S. grade standard may include the following: ( 1 ) *Scope and product description,* which describes the products that are eligible for grading using the standard (e.g., fish portion, fish fillet).
( 2 ) *Product forms,* which describe the types, styles and market forms covered by the standard (e.g., skin-off, tail-on, headless).
( 3 ) *Grade and inspection marks,* which describe the grades and inspection mark criteria for each grade category (e.g., Grade A ≤ 15 points).
( 4 ) *Grade determination,* which describes the means by which the grade is determined (i.e., the factors rated by score points and those that are not). Standards may contain defect grouping limiting rules that contain additional provisions that must be met.
( 5 ) *Sampling,* which describes the method of sampling and sample unit sizes (e.g., 10 portions, 8 ounces, etc.).
( 6 ) *Procedures* that describe the process used to determine the product grade (e.g., label declarations, sensory evaluation).
( 7 ) *Definitions of defects,* which outline the defects associated with the products covered by the standard, defines them, and describes the method of counting or measuring the defects. This section may provide associated defect points or reference a defect table (e.g., bruises, blood spots, bones, black spots, coating defects, 1-inch squares, percent by weight, ratios).
( 8 ) *Defect point assessment,* which describes how to assess points and provides any special guidance that may be necessary to the particular standard (e.g., defect points for certain categories are added together and divided by the weight of the sample unit; the number of instances are counted to determine if it is slight, moderate, or excessive defect).
( 9 ) *Tolerances for lot certification,* which provide the sections from Title 50 CFR that regulate lot certification.
( 10 ) *Hygiene,* which specifies the sections of applicable Federal regulations regulating the safe, wholesome production of food for human consumption.
( 11 ) *Methods of analysis,* which describe the methods of analysis that will be used in the evaluation of the products covered by the standard for grades (e.g., net weight, deglazing, debreading).
( 12 ) *Defect table,* which is the table of defects and associated points to be assessed for each defect.
[No. 4019.]

#### John C. Woodlief *v.*The State.

“Local Option” Law—Repeal— Case Approved.—It is within the power of the qualified voters of a justice’s precinct, town, or city, to repeal the “local option” law within the limits of such justice’s precinct, town, or city, in the manner provided by law, notwithstanding said law has been adopted and is in force throughout the county. Note the opinion for an approval by the majority of the court, of Whisenhunt’s case, 18 Texas Court of Appeals, 491, upon the same question.

Appeal from the County Court of Ellis. Tried below before the Hon. O. E. Dunlap.

The conviction in this case was for a violation of the “ local option ” law, and the penalty imposed was a fine of twenty-five dollars.

*A. A. Kemble,*for the appellant.

*J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Wilson, Judge.

Since the conviction in this case was obtained, the town of Waxahachie, in which the alleged offense was committed, has, by a legal election, repealed the local option law within the limits of said town. This court has decided that it is within the power of the qualified voters of a justice’s precinct, town or city, to repeal the local option law within the limits of such precinct, town or city, in the manner provided by law, notwithstanding said law has been adopted and is in force *413throughout the county. (Whisenhunt v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 491.)

Opinion delivered June 2, 1886.

A majority of the court adheres to this ruling, and hold that the local option law is no longer in force within the corporate limits of the town of Waxahachie, and there is, therefore, no law which would warrant an enforcement of the judgment of conviction, even if it were otherwise a valid conviction. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the prosecution is dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*