alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 12006E129 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E129

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Three - Community policies - TITLE VIII - Employment - Article 129 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0103 - 0103 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0089 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0236 - Consolidated version *

Article 129

The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, may adopt incentive measures designed to encourage cooperation between Member States and to support their action in the field of employment through initiatives aimed at developing exchanges of information and best practices, providing comparative analysis and advice as well as promoting innovative approaches and evaluating experiences, in particular by recourse to pilot projects.

Those measures shall not include harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.

--------------------------------------------------
Hillsborough

No. 81-265

#### Linda Sue Rahaim v. Gary C. Psaros

July 7, 1982

*Holland & Aivalikles,*of Nashua *(William E. Aivalikles*on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

*Wiggin & Nourie,*of Manchester *(Dort S. Bigg*and *Gary E. Hicks*on the brief, and *Mr. Hicks*orally), for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

In December 1978, the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, alleging personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. The case was eventually scheduled for trial beginning on February 24, 1981. On February 18, 1981, the plaintiff moved to amend her original writ against the defendant to add a claim for enhanced damages because the defendant was operating his automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the accident in question. The Court *(Dalianis,*J.) denied the plaintiffs motion to amend, and the plaintiff excepted. After a trial and a jury verdict awarding her damages, *Flynn,*J., presiding, the plaintiff appealed the court’s pre-trial denial of her motions seeking punitive or exemplary damages to this court.

 The general rule in New Hampshire is that the trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny amendments to pleadings. *See Phinney v. Levine,*117 N.H. 968, 970, *614381 A.2d 735, 736 (1977); RSA 514:9. The trial court neither abused its discretion nor erred as a matter of law when it denied the plaintiffs motion to amend, because the plaintiff was not entitled either to double damages under RSA 265:89-a or to punitive or exemplary damages under the common law. *See Johnsen v. Fernald,*120 N.H. 440, 441, 416 A.2d 1367, 1368 (1980).

In *Johnsen v. Fernald,*we held that the use of the fact that the defendant’s intoxication caused an accident, for the purpose of enhancing damages, is a matter of public policy for the legislature to determine. *Id.*at 441, 416 A.2d at 1368. Since *Johnsen,*the legislature has set forth the measure of damages in civil actions involving intoxicated drivers and the conditions for application of statutorily enhanced damages. RSA 265:89-a. This statute provides that double damages shall be imposed on intoxicated drivers whose conduct has caused injury to others, whose intoxication is a contributing factor, and who have been convicted of a second or subsequent offense of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor within a seven-year period. On the facts of the case before us, RSA 265:89-a is clearly inapplicable.

*Affirmed.*

Douglas, J., concurs in the result only.
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------

|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|In connection with the
Quarterly Report of PepsiAmericas, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended July 1, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert C. Pohlad, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 1. | the Report 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated: | August 4, 2006 | By: | /s/ ROBERT C. POHLAD                                             
|------ | -------------- | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|       |                |     |                                                                  
|       |                |     | Robert C. Pohlad                                                 
|       |                |     | Chairman of the Board and
                Chief Executive Officer
Hillsborough,

No. 4938.

#### Chagnon Lumber Co. *v.*Walter J. Patenaude.

Argued September 6, 1961.

Decided October 27, 1961.

*Morris D. Stein*(by brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

*449
      *Velishka & Kozlowski*for the defendant, furnished no brief.

Blandin, J.

The plaintiff’s claim, in brief, is that the defendant as an independent contractor signed a contract with a John R. Contrell to build a house for him in Lexington, Massachusetts, and that the plaintiff sold the defendant lumber and materials for the house, for which the defendant is liable.

The defendant denied these allegations and testified that he was an employee carpenter working by the day for Contrell, that he never bought the supplies himself, but told the plaintiff to charge them to Contrell.

An examination of the entire record convinces us that the sharply conflicting claims of the parties were for the jury to resolve. *Hiltz*v. Gould, 99 N. H. 85, 87. If the jury believed the defendant’s evidence that the plaintiff agreed to charge the supplies to Contrell the defendant would not be liable. Restatement, (Second) Agency, s. 320. It follows that the plaintiff’s exception to the denial of its motion to set aside the verdict must be overruled.

In regard to the alleged contract between Contrell and the defendant, it appears that the original was never produced and that the Court in excluding the copy offered by the plaintiff found that no satisfactory excuse was given for the nonproduction. It has long been the established law that a copy of a private document (containing here merely the typed signatures of the parties) is inadmissible unless the absence of the original is satisfactorily accounted for. *Wallace*v. *Goodall,*18 N. H. 439, 451, 455; 32 C. J. S., Evidence, *ss.*813, 823, 826; see *Skaling*v. *Remick,*97 N. H. 106, 108. The principle upon which the rule rests is that the original is the best evidence of the facts to be proved and that “it is to be procured and offered *if it can be had.”*IV Wigmore, Evidence (3d *ed.) s.*1192(1).

Each case must rest upon its own facts and it was for the Trial Court to determine, within its discretion, whether the plaintiff had made reasonable efforts to procure the original of the alleged contract. IV Wigmore, *supra, s.*1194, *pp.*339-340. The record convinces us that there was no abuse of discretion in the Court’s finding that the absence of the original was not properly accounted for (cf. *Skaling*v. *Remick,*supra) and that the exclusion of the copy is sustainable. The order is

*Judgment on the verdict.*

All concurred.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                  SUBSIDIARIES OF WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

WinStar Wireless, Inc.
WinStar Wireless Fiber Corp.
WinStar Telecommunications, Inc.
WinStar Gateway Network, Inc.
WinStar Milliwave, Inc.
WinStar Equipment Corp.
WinStar Credit Corp.
WinStar Global Products, Inc.
WinStar Locate, Inc.
WinPinn Corp.
WinStar New Media Company, Inc.
The Winning Line, Inc.
Global Media The Sales and Marketing Company, Inc.
WinStar Broadcasting Corp.
WinStar for Business Inc.
WinStar Interactive Media Sales Inc.
Non Fiction Films Inc.
GFL Communications, Inc.
Fox/Lorber Associates, Inc.
EE-TP-98-550 COMMENT 02CC
:'~ 

- EE-TP-98-550 COMMENT 02CC n. 
EE-TP-98-550 COMMENT 02CC
riority Sett

The new priority: setting process invites pu

Based primarily on potential energy saw

With considerationof ocher economic an

environmental factors

EE-TP-98-550 COMMENT 02CC
'taYYCRY+f'HR%]'^Y.,7='.•N.5Y?]:W

EE-TP-98-550 COMMENT 02CC

I,' 
EE-TP-98-550 COMMENT 02CC
EE-TP-98-550 COMMENT 02CC 
EE-TP-98-550 COMMENT 02CC
EE-TP-98-550 COMMENT 02CC f.
**Exhibit 12(a)**

CERTIFICATION

I, KenMacKenzie, certify that:

1.               I havereviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Amcor Limited;

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of,and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.                The company’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15(d)-15(e)) for the company and have:

(a)                                  Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b)                                 (Intentionallyomitted as Amcor Limited is not yet required to comply with S404 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002);

(c)                                  Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)                                 Disclosedin this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the period covered by this report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

5.               Thecompany’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’sauditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors:

(a)                                  Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)                                 Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the company’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: January15, 2007
|        |   /s/ Ken MacKenzie              |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   Name: Ken MacKenzie            |
|   |   Title: Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5595 

AN ACT 

To amend the Act of June 22, 1948. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 5595 ES

1 SECTION 1. APPRAISALS. 

2 Section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1948 (commonly 

3 known as the ‘‘Thye-Blatnik Act’’) (62 Stat. 570, chapter 

4 593; 16 U.S.C. 577g), is amended by striking ‘‘of the fair 

5 appraised value of such’’ and inserting ‘‘of the highest fair 

6 appraised value, including historical fair appraised values, 

7 as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture in accord8 ance with this section, of such’’. 

Passed the Senate December 18 (legislative day, December 16), 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5595 

AN ACT 

To amend the Act of June 22, 1948.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# ACTION:

Announcement of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the first meeting of the American Health Information Community Chronic Care Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.).

# DATES:

February 1, 2006 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

Hubert H. Humphrey Building (200 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20201), conference room 705A.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

*http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    For information on how to access this workgroup meeting via the Web, including ensuring your PC's compatibility, go to:                     *http://www.hsrnet.net/​onc/​workgroups/​*.                

This notice is published less than 15 days in advance of the meeting due to logistical difficulties.

Dated: January 23, 2006.

Dana Haza,

Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator.

[FR Doc. 06-830 Filed 1-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
# EUR-Lex - 11957A156 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11957A156

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( E.A.E.C. - EURATOM ), TITLE THREE - PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTIONS, CHAPTER I: THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY, SECTION IV: THE COURT OF JUSTICE, ARTICLE 156 **

*

*

++++

ARTICLE 156

NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD LAID DOWN IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 146 , ANY PARTY MAY , IN PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH A REGULATION OF THE COUNCIL OR OF THE COMMISSION IS IN ISSUE , PLEAD THE GROUNDS SPECIFIED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 146 , IN ORDER TO INVOKE BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THAT REGULATION .
# EUR-Lex - 12008E336 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E336

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART SEVEN: GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS - Article 336 (ex Article 283 TEC) **

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

Article 336

(ex Article 283 TEC)

The European Parliament and the Council shall, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the other institutions concerned, lay down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the Union.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12005SA039 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12005SA039

**Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded - PART FOUR:TEMPORARY PROVISIONS - TITLE IV:OTHER PROVISIONS - Article 39 **

*
Official Journal L 157 , 21/06/2005 P. 0217 - 0217 *

Article 39

1. If, on the basis of the Commission's continuous monitoring of commitments undertaken by Bulgaria and Romania in the context of the accession negotiations and in particular the Commission's monitoring reports, there is clear evidence that the state of preparations for adoption and implementation of the acquis in Bulgaria or Romania is such that there is a serious risk of either of those States being manifestly unprepared to meet the requirements of membership by the date of accession of 1 January 2007 in a number of important areas, the Council may, acting unanimously on the basis of a Commission recommendation, decide that the date of accession of that State is postponed by one year to 1 January 2008.

2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the Council may, acting by qualified majority on the basis of a Commission recommendation, take the decision mentioned in paragraph 1 with respect to Romania if serious shortcomings have been observed in the fulfilment by Romania of one or more of the commitments and requirements listed in Annex IX, point I.

3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, and without prejudice to Article 37, the Council may, acting by qualified majority on the basis of a Commission recommendation and after a detailed assessment to be made in the autumn of 2005 of the progress made by Romania in the area of competition policy, take the decision mentioned in paragraph 1 with respect to Romania if serious shortcomings have been observed in the fulfilment by Romania of the obligations undertaken under the Europe Agreement [17] or of one or more of the commitments and requirements listed in Annex IX, point II.

4. In the event of a decision taken under paragraph 1, 2 or 3, the Council shall, acting by qualified majority, decide immediately upon such adjustments to this Act, including its Annexes and Appendices, as have become indispensable by reason of the postponement decision.

[17] Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part (OJ L 357, 31.12.1994, p 2).

--------------------------------------------------
§ 452.04 Secretary's report. ( a ) *Contents of the report.* If the Secretary has made a positive finding on each of the threshold determinations, he shall proceed to gather information and prepare a report for the Endangered Species Committee: ( 1 ) Discussing the availability of reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed action;
( 2 ) Discussing the nature and extent of the benefits of the proposed action;
( 3 ) Discussing the nature and extent of the benefits of alternative courses of action consistent with conserving the species or the critical habitat;
( 4 ) Summarizing the evidence concerning whether the proposed action is of national or regional significance;
( 5 ) Summarizing the evidence concerning whether the proposed action is in the public interest;
( 6 ) Discussing appropriate and reasonable mitigation and enhancement measures which should be considered by the Committee in granting an exemption; and
( 7 ) Discussing whether the Federal agency and permit or license applicant, if any, have refrained from making any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources.
( b ) *Preparation of the report.* The report shall be prepared in accordance with procedures set out in § 452.05 and § 452.09.
###### Editorial Note on [Part 1926](/current/title-29/part-1926?toc=1)

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At [44 FR 8577](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-8577), Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at [44 FR 20940](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-20940), Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of [29 CFR part 1926](/on/2024-09-23/title-29/part-1926) together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in [29 CFR part 1910](/on/2024-09-23/title-29/part-1910), which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at [84 FR 21597](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-21597), May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1080 Safe practices manual.

Note:

The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.420 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-23/title-29/section-1910.420).

[[61 FR 31432](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31432), June 20, 1996]
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCTOBER 5, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-12215

Non-Argument Calendar

 

D. C. Docket No. 04-00159-CV-4

ARNOLD KARP,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus

THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Georgia 

 

(October 5, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

 The judgement of the district court, entered pursuant to the court’s

comprehensive order of March 8, 2006, is affirmed. For the reasons thoroughly

stated in that order, appellant’s federal claims lack merit, and appellant’s state law

claims are preempted by ERISA. 

AFFIRMED.