alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008027EN.01001601.xml

| 31.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/16

---

Communication from the Commission concerning the incorporation into Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (Single CMO Regulation) of recent policy reforms in the milk and milk products and the sugar sectors

(2008/C 27/05)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) constitutes an act of simplification of the regulatory environment of the common agricultural policy (CAP). It did not intend to call into question the policy decisions underlying the common organisations of the markets (CMO) as they existed at the time when the Single CMO Regulation was proposed to the Council, i.e. in December 2006.

1

In parallel to the negotiations on the Single CMO Regulation, the Council introduced certain amendments into the CMOs for milk and milk products and sugar. Those amendments could no more be taken into account in view of their incorporation into the Single CMO Regulation prior to its adoption on 22 October 2007.

The amendments concerning the milk and milk products sectors are contained in Council Regulations (EC) No 1152/2007 of 26 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (2) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1153/2007 of 26 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 2597/97 laying down additional rules on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products for drinking milk (3).

2

3

The respective decisions concerning the sugar sector were made by the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2007 of 9 October 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (4).

4

On 20 December 2007, the Commission adopted a proposal to the Council for an amendment of the Single CMO Regulation (5) including, amongst other amendments, the incorporation of the policy decisions contained in Regulations (EC) No 1152/2007 and (EC) No 1260/2007.

5

It is to be expected that these amendments will be adopted by the Council in the course of the first months of 2008.

---

(1)  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 258, 4.10.2007, p. 3.

2

(3)  OJ L 258, 4.10.2007, p. 6.

3

(4)  OJ L 283, 27.10.2007, p. 1.

4

(5)  COM(2007) 854 final.

5

---
#### § 75.420 Considerations for selected items of cost.

This section provides principles to be applied in establishing the allowability of certain items involved in determining cost, in addition to the requirements of §§ 75.402 through 75.411. These principles apply whether or not a particular item of cost is properly treated as direct cost or indirect (F&A) cost. Failure to mention a particular item of cost is not intended to imply that it is either allowable or unallowable; rather, determination as to allowability in each case should be based on the treatment provided for similar or related items of cost, and based on the principles described in §§ 75.402 through 75.411. In case of a discrepancy between the provisions of a specific Federal award and the provisions below, the Federal award governs. Criteria outlined in § 75.403 must be applied in determining allowability. See also § 75.102.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the date hereof (the
"Report"). I, Ronald E. Badke, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
that:

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

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



     By: /s/ Ronald E. Badke
         ------------------------------
         Ronald E. Badke
         Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
         March 30, 2004
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 Veterans Affairs

      ( print page 10305)    
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission has scheduled a meeting for March 22-23, 2007 in the Hamilton Ballroom of the Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel, 14th and K Streets, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. each day. The March 22 session will end at 5:15 p.m. and the March 23 session will end at 5 p.m. The meeting is open to the public. 

The purpose of the Commission is to carry out a study of the benefits under the laws of the United States that are provided to compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and deaths attributable to military service. 

The agenda for the meeting will feature updates on the progress of the studies being conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM). The Commission will receive presentations on the application of VA's disability rating schedule and several draft Issue Papers in various stages of development. There will also be a discussion of the format and outline to be used for the Commission's final report. The Commission will also receive comments from interested parties on Research Question 19, “Pending Claim Ends with Death.” 

                    Interested persons may attend and present oral statements to the Commission on March 23. Oral presentations will be limited to five minutes or less, depending on the number of participants. Interested parties may also provide written comments for review by the Commission prior to the meeting or at any time, by e-mail to                     *veterans@vetscommission.com*                     or by mail to Mr. Ray Wilburn, Executive Director, Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20004.                 

Dated: March 1, 2007.

By direction of the Secretary. 

E. Philip Riggin, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 07-1058 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
Grafton,

No. 5750.

#### State *v.*Roderick E. Santy (Mitchell).

Argued May 7, 1968.

Decided May 29, 1968.

*George S. Pappagianis,*Attorney General and *Henry F Spaloss,*Assistant Attorney General *(Mr. Spaloss*orally), for the State.

*Mack M. Mussman*( by brief and orally), for the defendant.

Kenison, C. J.

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of arson of a dwelling house. RSA 584:1. The defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of not guilty was based on the undisputed fact that tlie selectmen of the town of Littleton, where the offense was committed, did not prosecute the case. RSA 584:9 provides that “It shall be the duty of mayors of cities and selectmen of towns to prosecute all offenses arising under this chapter.” The chapter is entitled “Arson and Burning Property.’’The motion was denied and the defendant’s exception thereto was reserved and transferred *by Leahy,*C. J.

RSA 584:9 was an addition to the laws relating to arson which was a part of Laws 1891, ch. 55. While the legislative history of the 1891 amendments is sparse and inconclusive, an examination of the bills introduced at that session and the resulting legislation indicate that certain definite objectives were intended to be accomplished. First, the emphasis was on the willfiil or careless burning of “any forest, woodlot . . . pasture, or fields.” Laws 1891, *c.*55, *s.*1 which is now RSA 584:7 without substantial change. Secondly, a monetary reward was allowed for *86informers who provided evidence which secured the conviction of persons who committed arson. Thirdly, the reward was to be paid by the State upon presentation of the “certificate of the attorney-general or solicitor [now county attorney] that he is entitled thereto.” Laws 1891, *c.*55, *s.*2 which is now RSA 584:8 without substantial change. The fact that rewards were to be paid to tirose who inform “the prosecuting officers of the state” (Laws 1891, *c.*55, *s.*1; RSA 584:7) and then only when certified by the Attorney General or county attorney (Laws 1891, *c. 55, s. 2;*RSA 584:8) is significant. It leads to the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend that the duty of local prosecution as provided in RSA 584:9 was exclusive. Furthermore this construction of RSA 584:9, is consistent with tire statutory directives to the Attorney General and the county attorneys. RSA 7:6, 11, 34. *Wyman*v. *Danais,*101 N. H. 487.

There are innumerable examples in our statutes where enforcement duties are placed on specified local, county and State officials. See, *i.e.,*RSA 572:34. These provisions are valid *(State*v. *Urban,*98 N. H. 346, 349 ) but they do not prevent or preclude the enforcement of the penal statutes by any authorized official. *State*v. *LaPalme,*104 N. H. 97. See *State*v. *Swift,*101 N. H. 340.

In the present case the offense was a major felony (RSA 584:1) in which the Attorney General and the county attorney were fully authorized and directed by statute to prosecute. RSA 7:6, 34; *State*v. *Ingalls,*59 N. H. 88; *Fletcher*v. *Merrimack County,*71 N. H. 96, 101. The denial of defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of not guilty was proper.

*Exception overruled.*

All concurred.
#### Roma Love, appellant, v. Howard C. Park et al., appellees.

Filed July 11, 1914.

No. 17,556.

Opinion on motion for rehearing of case reported in 95 Neb. 729.

*Rehearing denied.*

Per Curiam.

The brief upon the motion for rehearing urges that a surety can only be held to the letter of his contract, and that, not being liable for the debt itself, no equity can arise against the surety requiring him to pay the debt in order to insist upon his legal rights as a surety. There is, of course, no doubt about this proposition of law. The authorities seem to be unanimous, and are quite fully cited and clearly stated in the brief. It follows that, if the plaintiff, Roma Love, was a surety only, our decision is wrong.

It does not seem that she can claim to be, strictly speaking, a mere surety in this action. The contract is not in *486form a contract of suretyship, but is a pledge of personal property. The stock which was pledged was issued to this plaintiff in her name. She indorsed her name upon the back in blank, thus making it partake Of the character of negotiable paper, and placed it in the hands of her brother-in-law to be used by him as a pledge for collateral security. She testified that his agreement with her strictly was that he should pledge it only for the $2,500 which he expected to borrow, and not for his then existing liability to the bank. The trial court correctly found that this contention of hers was true. She did not, however, notify ME Park of this limitation on the power of her brother-in-law. Under these circumstances, Mr. Park had the same right in the pledge as though it had in fact been the property of the pledgor. He was an innocent holder of the pledge in good faith, and cannot be compelled in equity to resign the pledge without the payment of his claim which it was given to secure.

The motion for rehearing is

Overruled.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20520 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

LAMONT M. SAPP, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 

 Defendant Lamont Sapp has filed a motion for compassionate release and/or for 

reduction of sentence pursuant to the First Step Act. The Court is not yet persuaded that 

Sapp is eligible for the relief he seeks or that the Court has the authority to grant the 

requested relief. The Court will offer Sapp an opportunity to submit a supplemental brief 

citing authority for the propositions that he is eligible for the relief he seeks and that the 

Court may grant it. Sapp should specifically explain how he satisfies the eligibility 

requirements for the relief he seeks and should cite authority (for instance, case law and 

statutory cites) in support of his explanation. Scott shall submit his supplemental brief by 

not later than August 2, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 27, 2019 
2 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or 

counsel of record on June 27, 2019, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
§ 111.60-6 Fiber optic cable. Each fiber optic cable must— ( a ) Be constructed to pass the flammability test contained in IEEE 1202, test FV-2/VW-1 of UL 2556, or IEC 60332-3-22:2018 (all three standards incorporated by reference; see 46 CFR 110.10-1); or
( b ) Be installed in accordance with § 111.60-2.
[CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28280, June 4, 1996, as amended by USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65198, Oct. 31, 2008;USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16363, Mar. 16, 2023]
§ 400.65 Continuation of a publicly-administered RCA program. Sections 400.65 through 400.69 apply to publicly-administered RCA programs. If a State chooses to operate a publicly-administered RCA program: ( a ) The State may operate its refugee cash assistance program consistent with its TANF program.
( b ) The State must submit an amendment to its State Plan, describing the elements of its TANF program that will be used in its refugee cash assistance program.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THE

TODD, CASS, AND MORRISON COUNTIES STEERING COMMITTEE AND THE
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

_WATER-RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 83-4156 PLATE 3
45' 40° 35° 30° 25° 94°20°
R. 32 W. R. 34 W. R. 31 W. . i bi ? t 30 W. R. 29 W.
tea YT es os |! & a“ a i il ied t “nae 1.134 .N
aa iff Ye RC ;
a A zt 7 2 rin gen Aa! ; oe bee
£ aad t
a) a 2
eS ees —-
ols i |
7 en + 4026"
1
be
eI
oe)
1
|
wa
1
95°00’ 55° 50’ sit
R.35W. R. 34 wt R. 34 W. R. 33 W.
ee
ay ee
i |
7 T. 132 N.
a 7
il " alley "" 3
4. Boon
a ghee
irae 3) i]
COG b Evitiom © ff | Muskrat 1.
a = ee) een 3
. q “Lake
|| walle if
| x Mud 38 os
[CAMP “RIPLEY eee
atte oT. 131 N.
3 ’ t ac.
CBovieanut 7
ty on
10°
'
a
i T. 131 N.
#
Clothe! EXPLANATION
eee T. 129 N.
WATER-TABLE CONTOUR--Shows
46°00" altitude of water table, June 1, 1979.
—1220— Dashed where approximately located.
Interval 20 feet. National Geodetic
a: ~ c’u ou. 3D Vertical Datum of 1929
— se ae aa et ike SAND-PLAIN BOUNDARY--Dashed
ee —— — where sand plain continues beyond
i study area
| Study area
e Irrigation well
é .U. S. Geological Survey observation
well
teeteauaeieg testes i hh “
3 oe 6 8 KILOMETERS TM
10 UisN*s
Me fer Hansmanl
7A TERY
me
me
T. 128 N.
J. 127 N.
45°50"
Peat. . i e
<li. : } Tie 1.127 N.
R. 35 W. R. ah Ww. i IR. 34W. R33 W. R. 33 W. R. 32 R!32 W. R.31W. R. 31W. R. 30 W. R. 30 W. R29 W. R. 29 W.
95°05" 95°00" H 55° 50° 46° 40° 35° 30° 25° 94°20°
Base from Minnesota Department of Highways \
General Highway Maps of Cass, Morrison, ‘
and Todd Counties, 1977 !
| PLATE 3.--CONFIGURATION OF THE WATER—TABLE IN THE SURFICIAL OUTWASH AQUIFER
f
|
Exhibit 13.1




Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of B.O.S. Better Online Solutions Ltd., a company organized under the laws of the State of Israel (the “Company”), for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





1.
the Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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 as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.




By: /s/Yuval Viner

Yuval Viner

Chief Executive Officer
By: /s/ Eyal Cohen

Eyal Cohen

Chief Financial Officer





Date: June 30, 2011
§ 115.801 Notice of inspection deficiencies and requirements. ( a ) If during the inspection of a vessel, the vessel or its equipment is found not to conform to the requirements of law or the regulations in this subchapter, the marine inspector will point out deficiencies observed and discuss all requirements with the owner, managing operator, or a representative thereof. Normally, the marine inspector will list all such requirements that have not been completed and present the list to the owner, managing operator, or a representative thereof. However, when a deficiency presents a serious safety hazard to the vessel or its passengers or crew, and exists through negligence or willful noncompliance, the marine inspector may issue a Report of Violation (ROV) to the owner, managing operator, or a representative thereof.
( b ) In any case where further clarification of or reconsideration of any requirement placed against the vessel is desired, the owner, managing operator, or a representative thereof, may discuss the matter with the cognizant OCMI.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 892, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58283, Sept. 29, 2014]
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1626

ANGELA GEORGES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DOMINION PAYROLL SERVICES, LLC , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. M. Hannah Lauck , District Judge. ( 3:16

- cv
- 00777

- MHL )

Submitted : February 1, 2019 Decided: February 7, 2019

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jameson Alec Goodell, Paul L. Warren, WARREN PLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Brian G. Muse, Faith A. Alejandro, SANDS ANDERSON PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Angela Georges appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on Georges ’ claim alleging age discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Georges v. Dominion Payroll Servs., LLC , No. 3:16

- cv
- 00777

- MHL (E.D. Va. May 4, 2018) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and leg al contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

PRIME RATE PREMIUM FINANCE 

CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, Case Number 14-12397 

v. Honorable David M. Lawson 

KAREN E. LARSON, Individually and as 

Personal Representative of the Estate of 

KEITH A. LARSON, Deceased, 

 Defendants, 

and 

BRANDON LARSON, GP INSURANCE 

AGENCY, INC., and INSUREPLEX 

MARKET SOLUTIONS, INC. 

 Garnishee-Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER ADDING ADRIAN LEE CARRANZA AS A PARTY 

TO SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

 On January 11, 2019, the Court entered an order requiring non-party Adrian Lee Carranza 

to appear and show cause why he should not be made a party to the case under Michigan Compiled 

Laws § 600.6128. See ECF No. 332. The plaintiff alleges that shortly before the Court entered a 

default judgment in the amount of $964,530.48 against the defendants on August 16, 2018, 

defendant Karen Larson fraudulently transferred a trailer and two motor vehicles to Adrian Lee 

Carranza, her live-in boyfriend, in violation of Michigan’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, 

Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.34, et seq. On February 27, 2019, Mr. Carranza appeared before the 

undersigned. However, Mr. Carranza did not offer any legitimate basis to deny the plaintiff’s 

request that he be added to the case. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court announced from 

the bench its decision to join Mr. Carranza as a party defendant. See Estes v. Titus, 273 Mich. 
- 2 - 

App. 356, 383, 731 N.W.2d 119, 136 (2006), aff’d in relevant part, 481 Mich. 573, 751 N.W.2d 

493, 503-04 (2008) (“Our Supreme Court has long held that when a creditor attempts to collect a 

judgment by setting aside a judgment debtor’s fraudulent conveyances of his property to others, 

‘the creditor may make all such parties defendants . . . .’”) (quoting Hulbert v. Detroit Cycle Co., 

107 Mich. 81, 84, 64 N.W. 950 (1895)). 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall amend the caption to name 

Adrian Lee Carranza as a party defendant in this case and annotate the docket to reflect the 

following contact information for Mr. Carranza: 

821 Fisher Road 

Quincy, Michigan 49082 

(517) 462 6173 

 It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff may file an amended or supplemental complaint 

stating its case against defendant Carranza on or before March 21, 2019. 

 It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff personally must serve a copy of this order on Mr. 

Carranza and file a certificate of service. 

 s/David M. Lawson 

 DAVID M. LAWSON 

 United States District Judge 

Date: March 1, 2019 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was 

served upon each attorney or party of record herein by 

electronic means or first class U.S. mail on March 1, 2019. 

 s/Susan K. Pinkowski 

 SUSAN K. PINKOWSKI
2:14-mj-30379-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 07/29/14 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 1
2:14-mj-30379-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 07/29/14 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 2
2:14-mj-30379-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 07/29/14 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 3
2:14-mj-30379-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 07/29/14 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 4
2:14-mj-30379-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 07/29/14 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 5