alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 12003T/PRO/09 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12003T/PRO/09

**Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded - Protocol No 9 on unit 1 and unit 2 of the Bohunice VI nuclear power plant in Slovakia **

*
Official Journal L 236 , 23/09/2003 P. 0954 - 0954 *

Protocol No 9

on unit 1 and unit 2 of the Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant in Slovakia

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

NOTING Slovakia's commitment to close Unit 1 and Unit 2 of the Bohunice V1 Nuclear Power Plant by 2006 and by 2008 respectively and declaring the Union's willingness to continue to provide until 2006 financial aid in continuation of the pre-accession aid planned under the Phare programme in support of Slovakia's decommissioning effort,

NOTING the need to adopt implementing provisions regarding the continued Community assistance,

HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Slovakia commits to the closure of Unit 1 of the Bohunice V1 Nuclear Power Plant by 31 December 2006 and Unit 2 of this plant by 31 December 2008 at the latest and to subsequent decommissioning of these units.

Article 2

1. During the period 2004-2006, the Community shall provide Slovakia with financial assistance in support of its efforts to decommission and to address the consequences of the closure and decommissioning of Unit 1 and Unit 2 of the Bohunice V1 Nuclear Power Plant (hereinafter referred to as "the Assistance").

2. The Assistance shall be decided and implemented - also after Slovakia's accession to the Union - in accordance with the provisions laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89 of 18 December 1989 on economic aid to certain countries of Central and Eastern Europe [1], as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2500/2001 [2].

3. For the period 2004-2006 the Assistance shall amount to EUR 90 million in commitment appropriations, to be committed in equal annual tranches.

4. The Assistance or parts thereof may be made available as a Community contribution to the Bohunice International Decommissioning Support Fund, managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Article 3

The European Union acknowledges that the decommissioning of the Bohunice V1 Nuclear Power plant will have to continue beyond the current financial perspective and that this effort represents for Slovakia a significant financial burden. Decisions on the continuation of EU assistance in this field after 2006 will take the situation into account.

[1] OJ L 375, 23.12.1989, p. 11.

[2] OJ L 342, 27.12.2001, p. 1.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12008E333 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E333

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART SIX: INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - TITLE III: ENHANCED COOPERATION - Article 333 (ex Articles 27 **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0191 - 0192 *

Article 333

(ex Articles 27a to 27e, 40 to 40b and 43 to 45 TEU and ex Articles 11 and 11a TEC)

1. Where a provision of the Treaties which may be applied in the context of enhanced cooperation stipulates that the Council shall act unanimously, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 330, may adopt a decision stipulating that it will act by a qualified majority.

2. Where a provision of the Treaties which may be applied in the context of enhanced cooperation stipulates that the Council shall adopt acts under a special legislative procedure, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 330, may adopt a decision stipulating that it will act under the ordinary legislative procedure. The Council shall act after consulting the European Parliament.

3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to decisions having military or defence implications.

--------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

fEB l ·t 2ull 

Mark Delaplaine 

Manager, Energy, Ocean Resources, and 

Federal Consistency Division 

California Coastal Commission 

45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2219 

Re: CD-058-11, EPA National Consistency Determination, Vessel General Permit 

(VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) 

Dear Mr. Delaplaine: 

By letter dated February 10, 2012, you requested a 15-day extension (in accordance with 

15 CFR 930.41(b)) of the 60-day time period provided in our letter of December 8, 2011 for 

replying to EPA's national consistency determination for the general permits referenced above. 

We hereby grant your request. The new deadline for the Commission's reply is February 26, 

2012. 

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Eugene Bromley of 

the NPDES Permits Office at (415) 972-3510. 

David Smith, Manager 

NPDES Permits Office (WfR-5) 

Printed 011 Recycled Paper
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 20 14 - 0514 Directorate ID : 20 14 - SW - 027 - AD Helicopter Model: MD Helicopters, Inc. Model MD900 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 23 Helicopters in the US Registry . Re ason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect a crack in the upper hub to prevent failure of the upper hb and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter . Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 15,998 to replace an upper hub Labor per Helicopter ( 1 work- hour x 

### $ 8 5 /work hour for the inspection) $ 85 per helicopter and a total fleet cost of $1,955 Other (11 work hours to replace an upper hub) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 85 unless an upper hub is replaced Total US Fleet Cost $ 1,955 Executive Order 128 66 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impac t on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Eric Schrieber
§ 82.8 Prosecution of work. ( a ) The grantee shall pursue the agreed-upon objectives expeditiously, adhering to the procedures set forth in the Cooperative Agreement. Failure to do so or failure to provide timely and adequate reports shall be cause for the Secretary to withhold further reimbursements to the grantee until project commitments are satisfactorily met. All further disbursement of funds under the cooperative agreement may be terminated upon determination by the Secretary that satisfactory progress has not been maintained.
( b ) All work shall be performed in accordance with applicable Federal, state, and local laws, including safety, health and sanitation laws, except that when state and local laws are in conflict with Federal laws or regulations, such Federal laws or regulations shall prevail.
#### Engel v. Samuels.

PBA.CTICE.

The defendant produced a receipt for a sum of money purporting to have been signed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s principal witness testified that he drew the receipt and that the plaintiff signed it. Plaintiff testified he was in doubt whether the signature was his, but that it might be. *Held,*that it was error to submit to the jury tlie question of the genuineness of the signature.

*Appeal from the County Court of Arapahoe County.*

Mr. Alfred Muller, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Thomson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The. appellee sued the appellant before a justice of the peace for an alleged indebtedness of $50.00. The evidence for the plaintiff was that he was the proprietor of a barber shop in Denver ; that he owed the defendant a sum of money which was secured by a chattel mortgage on the furniture and material in the shop; that he was unable to pay the. debt, and that the defendant, in consideration that he would find some one who would purchase the shop and execute to the defendant a new mortgage on the property, agreed to cancel the plaintiff’s mortgage, and pay him $50.00; that the purchaser was procured, and the new mortgage executed, but the $50.00 was never paid.

The defendant produced a receipt to himself for $50.00,: purporting to be signed by the plaintiff, and dated gome two or three weeks after the transaction. Mr. Oppenheim, the plaintiff’s principal witness, testified that he drew the receipt and the plaintiff signed it. The plaintiff testified that he was in doubt whether the signature was his, but that it might be. The court submitted the question of the genuineness of *339the signature to the jury.. We do not think this should have been done. The plaintiff was bound by the testimony of Mr. Oppenheim, his own witness, more especially as he did not himself explicitly deny that the signature was his. The fact of the execution of the receipt was established, and under the evidence there was no question of its genuineness to be submitted to the jury.

The evidence would have justified the court in instructing the jury to find whether the receipt was given for the money in suit, or had reference to some other transaction, or represented money actually paid. The court, however, did not do this; and the instructions as given were, for the reason we have indicated, erroneous.

Let the judgment he reversed.

*Reversed.*
NO. 06
- 16
- 00032
- CR

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COURT § vs. § OF APPEALS § 

### J AMEL MCLELLAND FOWLER § SIXTH APPELATE DISTRICT

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: Now comes Jamel McLelland Fowler , Appellee in the above styled and numbered cause, and moves this Court to grant and exte nsion of time to file Appellee ’ s brief pursuant to Rule 38.6 of the Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure and for good cause shows the following:

1. This case is on appeal from the 196 th District Court , Hunt County, Texas;
2. The case below was styled State of Texas vs. Jamel McLelland Fowler , Cause Number 30,511

. 3. Appellee was not convicted

. 4. Appellee was not sentenced

. 5. Notic e of Appe al was given on February 26, 2016

. 6. The Clerk's record was filed on June 15, 2016 ; The Reporter's recor d was filed on June 20, 2016

. 7. Appellee 's brief is currently due o n September 1 2 , 2016

. 8. Appellee req uests an extension of time of 30 days from the current due date.
9. No extension has been previously requested in this cause number

. 10. Appellee is not incarcerated in this cause number.
11. Appellee relies on the following facts as good cause for the extension ACCEPTED 06-16-00032-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 9/12/2016 12:00:00 AM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKrequested: Appellee 's attorney, Jessica E dwards, is a so le practitioner

. In the last 35 days Counsel has had multi ple unexpected hear ings, filed three briefs including 06

- 16

- 00038

- CR (Appellee ’ s appellant brief), 06

- 16

- 00121

- CR, and 06

- 16

- 00100

- CR, and drafted a Writ of Mandamus to be submitted in the Twelfth Court of Appeals. Counsel is also preparing for oral arguments in 06

- 16

- 00179

- CR to be heard on September 28, 2016. Counsel has had insufficient time to adequately examine the record in order to effectively prepare a brief in this case.

W HEREFORE, PREMISIS CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this Court would grant Appellant's Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

_ /s/Jessica Edwards

______ Jessica Edwards SBN: 24000994 P.O. Box 9318 Greenville, Texas 75404 Tel: (903) 458

- 9108 Fax: (903) 200

- 1359 E

- Mail: jessica@jessicaedwardslaw.com Attorney for Jamel McLelland Fowler

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on S eptember 10, 2016 , a true and correct copy of the above and forego ing document was served on the District Att orney's Office, by email

.

/s/Jessica Edwards Jessica Edwards
Case 16-23810 Doc 9 Filed 08/01/16 Entered 08/02/16 09:03:47 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
#### § 85.10 Purpose and scope.

The purpose of this part is to establish requirements for state participation in the Clean Vessel Act Grant Program authorized by Section 5604 of the Clean Vessel Act (Public Law 102-587, Subtitle F).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0703

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

KEITH POPE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 25, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 18 2023

08/18/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0703
Case 16-26276 Doc 1 Filed 08/16/16 Entered 08/16/16 14:15:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 10
Case 16-26276 Doc 1 Filed 08/16/16 Entered 08/16/16 14:15:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 10
Case 16-26276 Doc 1 Filed 08/16/16 Entered 08/16/16 14:15:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 10
Case 16-26276 Doc 1 Filed 08/16/16 Entered 08/16/16 14:15:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 10
Case 16-26276 Doc 1 Filed 08/16/16 Entered 08/16/16 14:15:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 10
Case 16-26276 Doc 1 Filed 08/16/16 Entered 08/16/16 14:15:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 10
Case 16-26276 Doc 1 Filed 08/16/16 Entered 08/16/16 14:15:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 10
Case 16-26276 Doc 1 Filed 08/16/16 Entered 08/16/16 14:15:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 10
Case 16-26276 Doc 1 Filed 08/16/16 Entered 08/16/16 14:15:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 10
Case 16-26276 Doc 1 Filed 08/16/16 Entered 08/16/16 14:15:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 10
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**In connection with the Quarterly Report of EUPA International Corporation (the “Corporation”) onForm 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yuan-Chung Tsai, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.       /s/ Yuan-Chung Tsai Yuan-Chung Tsai    President and Chief Executive Officer  November 7, 2006
19
Dismiss and Opinion Filed September 27, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00737-CV IN THE INTEREST OF O.D.F., A CHILD On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-23736 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, F rancis, and Lang-Miers Opinion by Justice Francis This is a restricted appeal from the trial court’s January 25, 2017 order in suit affecting the parent-child relationship. The c lerk’s record reflects appella nt did not participate in person or through counsel in the hearing that resulted in the challenged order and he did not timely file a post-judgment motion or request for findings of fact and conclu sions of law. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 30. Accordingly, the notice of appeal was due no later than Ju ly 24, 2017 or, with an extension motion, no later than August 8, 2017. See id. 26.1(c), 26.3. The notice of appeal, however, was not filed until June 27, 2018, almost a year later. Because the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictio nal, we directed appellant to file a letter brief addressi ng the Court’s concern. See Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney,
L.L.C. , 302 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh’g). Appellant–2– complied, but his letter does not demonstrate we have jurisdict ion over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

180737F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF O.D.F., A CHILD
No. 05-18-00737-CV On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-23736. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER appellee Arianne Nayeli Fernandez recover her costs, if any, o f this appeal from appellant Omar Dario Fernandez.
Judgment entered September 27, 2018.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20D0404. RYAN BROWN v. JULIANNA HAMIL.

On April 13, 2020, the juvenile court entered a final order denying Ryan

Brown’s petition for legitimation. On June 8, 2020, Brown filed a notice of appeal

and Julianna Hamil, the biological mother of the child, filed a motion for new trial.

Then on June 15, 2020, Brown filed this application for discretionary review.

1 See 

Numanovic v. Jones, 321 Ga. App. 763, 764 (743 SE2d 450) (2013) (providing that

appeals from final orders in legitimation cases must be brought by discretionary

application pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2)). Hamil has filed a motion to dismiss

Brown’s application on the basisthat her motion for new trialremains pending below. 

In an order entered on June 18, 2020, the juvenile court determined that

Hamil’s motion for new trial was filed prior to Brown’s notice of appeal and set the

matter for a hearing on her motion for new trial in August 2020. Because Hamil’s

motion for new trial remains pending below, the April 13, 2020 order is not final, and

Brown was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA §

5-6-34 (b) and obtain a certificate of immediate review from the trial judge in order

to appeal the April 13 order. See Hann v. State, 292 Ga. App. 719, 720 (1) (665 SE2d

731) (2008); Drake v. Clutter, 194 Ga. App. 644, 645 (391 SE2d 473) (1990).

Moreover, OCGA § 5-6-35, the discretionary appeal statute, does not excuse a party

1 All of these June 2020 filings were timely under the Chief Justice’s

emergency orders tolling all filing deadlines. See Second Order Extending

Declaration of Statewide Judicial Emergency (May 11, 2020); Third Order Extending

Declaration of Statewide Judicial Emergency (June 12, 2020). 

July 02, 2020
seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order fromcomplying with the additional

requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471

SE2d 213) (1996).

Brown’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth

above deprives this Court of jurisdiction over this application. Accordingly, Hamil’s

motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and this application is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/02/2020
§ 1150.21 Form of documents to be filed. Documents to be filed under the rules in this part shall be dated, the original signed in ink, shall show the docket number and title of the proceeding and shall show the title, if any, and address of the signatory. Copies need not be signed; however, the name of the person signing the original, but not necessarily his/her signature, shall be reproduced. Documents shall be legible and shall not be more than 81 ⁄ 2 inches wide.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Immediatek Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Report***”), I, Zach Bair, President, ChiefExecutive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as applicable; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periodsindicated.

 

 
| /S/  Zach Bair                                                      |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Zach  Bair                                                          |
| President,  Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer |
|                                                                |
| Dated:  November 14, 2003                                      |

 

----
# EUR-Lex - 12006M004 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006M004

**Treaty on European Union (consolidated version) - Title I - Common provisions - Article 4 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0012 - 0012 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0011 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0153 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 191 , 29/07/1992 P. 0004 *

Article 4

The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof.

The European Council shall bring together the Heads of State or Government of the Member States and the President of the Commission. They shall be assisted by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Member States and by a Member of the Commission. The European Council shall meet at least twice a year, under the chairmanship of the Head of State or Government of the Member State which holds the Presidency of the Council.

The European Council shall submit to the European Parliament a report after each of its meetings and a yearly written report on the progress achieved by the Union.

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