alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011252EN.01002001.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 17 June 2011 — ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-300/11)

2011/C 252/37

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZZ

Applicant:

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

‘Does the principle of effective judicial protection, set out in Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/38 (1), as interpreted in the light of Article 346(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, require that a judicial body considering an appeal from a decision to exclude a European Union citizen from a member state on grounds of public policy and public security under Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38 ensure that the European Union citizen concerned is informed of the essence of the grounds against him, notwithstanding the fact that the authorities of the Member State and the relevant domestic court, after consideration of the totality of the evidence against the European Union citizen relied upon by the authorities of the Member State, conclude that the disclosure of the essence of the grounds against him would be contrary to the interests of state security?’

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC

1

OJ L 158, p. 77

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 2, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41494 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. LANDON RANNIER JONES Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:01-CR-199-1

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Landon Rannier Jones has appealed his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute less than 100 grams of phencyclidine (“PCP”) and for possession with intent to distribute less than 100 grams of PCP. Jones contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop of a rental car in which he was a passenger. Jones contends that the traffic stop was notNo. 02-41494 -2- justified at its inception and that the scope of his detention exceeded the permissible purpose of the stop. The arresting officers testified at the suppression hearing that they stopped the vehicle because they observed two traffic violations, failure to signal a lane change and failure to maintain a single lane. Jones argues that the evidence did not show that the failure of the driver to maintain a single lane was unsafe or dangerous. Without such a showing, he contends, no state law violation was shown. We need not resolve this question, because the driver’s failure to signal a lane change provided an adequate basis for stopping the vehicle. See United States v. Roberson , 6 F.3d 1088, 1091–92 (5th Cir. 1993); see also T EX . T RANS . C ODE A NN . § 545.104 (West 1999). The arresting officer articulated facts during the suppression hearing from which he could have concluded reasonably that Jones had committed or was committing a crime. Accordingly, Jones’s continued detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. See United
States v. Jones , 234 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 2000). Jones contends also that the evidence of his guilt was insufficient. Because Jones did not move for judgment of acquittal in the district court, our review is limited to a determination whether Jones’s “convictions resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice, which exists only if the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt or if the evidence on a key element of the offense is so tenuous that a conviction would beNo. 02-41494 -3- shocking.” United States v. Smith , 203 F.3d 884, 887–88 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). There was ample evidence presented at trial showing that Jones conspired with his codefendants to distribute PCP and that Jones possessed PCP with intent to distribute. The convictions are
AFFIRMED.
# C_2008255EN.01000401.xml

| 8.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/4

---

Communication of the Commission on the quantity of certain products in the milk and milk products sector available for the first half of 2009 under certain quotas opened by the Community

(2008/C 255/06)

When import licences were allocated for the second half of 2008 for certain quotas referred to in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 (1), applications for licences referred to quantities less than those available for the products concerned. As a result, the quantity available for each quota for the period 1 January to 30 June 2009 should be calculated, taking account of the unallocated quantities resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 578/2008 of 19 June 2008 determining the extent to which the applications for import licences submitted in June 2008 for certain dairy products under certain tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 can be accepted (2).

1

2

The quantities available for the period 1 January to 30 June 2009 for the second half of the year of importation for certain quotas referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 are indicated hereunder.

---

(1)  OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 29.

1

(2)  OJ L 161, 20.6.2008, p. 20.

2

---

ANNEX

ANNEX I.A

| Quota number | Quantity (kilograms) |
| --- | --- |
| 09.4590 | 68 537 000 |
| 09.4599 | 11 360 000 |
| 09.4591 | 5 360 000 |
| 09.4592 | 18 438 000 |
| 09.4593 | 5 413 000 |
| 09.4594 | 20 007 000 |
| 09.4595 | 7 502 502 |
| 09.4596 | 19 417 492 |

Quota number

Quantity (kilograms)

09.4590

68 537 000

09.4599

11 360 000

09.4591

5 360 000

09.4592

18 438 000

09.4593

5 413 000

09.4594

20 007 000

09.4595

7 502 502

09.4596

19 417 492

ANNEX I.F

| Products originating in Switzerland |
| --- |
| Quota number | Quantity (kilograms) |
| 09.4155 | 1 500 000 |

Products originating in Switzerland

Quota number

Quantity (kilograms)

09.4155

1 500 000

ANNEX I.H

| Products originating in Norway |
| --- |
| Quota number | Quantity (kilograms) |
| 09.4179 | 2 594 850 |

Products originating in Norway

Quota number

Quantity (kilograms)

09.4179

2 594 850

ANNEX I.I

| Products originating in Iceland |
| --- |
| Quota number | Quantity (kilograms) |
| 09.4205 | 175 000 |
| 09.4206 | 360 000 |

Products originating in Iceland

Quota number

Quantity (kilograms)

09.4205

175 000

09.4206

360 000

---
BILLING CODE: 6715-01-M 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

DATE & TIME: THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2017 AT 11:15 A.M. 

PLACE: 999 E STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. (NINTH FLOOR)

STATUS: THIS MEETING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-01: American Urological Association

Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-03: American Association of Clinical Urologists, 

Inc./UROPAC

Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-04: Lancman for Congress

Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the American Financial 

Services Association PAC (AFSAPAC) (A15-11)

Discussion of Commission’s Response to Alleged Foreign Interference in 

American Elections

Management and Administrative Matters

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language 

interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown,

Secretary and Clerk, at (202)694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer

Telephone: (202) 694-1220

Signed: _____________________________________

Dayna C. Brown

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission

Submitted: June 15, 2017
APC Category APC Category Description

1 Skin 2 Cardiovascular tests/procedures 3 GI tests/procedures 4 Genitourinary/Renal procedures 5 Musculoskeletal procedures 6Access device procedures (Vascular /Other) 7Access device procedures (Endoscopy /Laproscopy) 8 Nerve/Neuro tests/procedures 9 Drug administration 10 Pathology 11 Prostate tests/procedures 12 Female Reproductive tests/procedures 13 Male Reproductive tests/procedures 14 Biopsies 15 Psych tests/treatments 16 ENT 17 Eye 18 Blood/Lymph/Marrow procedures 19 E&M 20 Imaging 21 Breast procedures 22 Screening tests 23 Radiation therapies 24Nuclear Medicine 25 Special OPPS Payment Status 26 Special OPPS Payment Status 27 Other Minor Services 28 Pulmonary tests/procedures 29 "Drugs, Vaccines " 30 Brachytherapy Sources 31 Devices 32 Blood and Blood Products
#### § 111.05-13 Grounding connection.

Each grounded system must have only one point of connection to ground regardless of the number of power sources operating in parallel in the system.
**EXHIBIT 32****Section 1350 Certification**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Nextera Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:     (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date:November 3, 2005     By: /s/ Michael P. Muldowney     President and Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the "Form
10-QSB") of Community Shores Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, Heather D. Brolick, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer,
certify that:

     (i)  the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
          78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.

Dated: August 14, 2006

                                        /s/ Heather D. Brolick
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Heather D. Brolick
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2011311EN.01001901.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 28 July 2011 — Blanka Soukupová v Ministerstvo zemědělství

(Case C-401/11)

2011/C 311/31

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Blanka Soukupová

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | May the concept of ‘normal retirement age’ at the time of transfer of a farm under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1) be interpreted as ‘the age required for entitlement to a retirement pension’ by a particular applicant under national legislation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May the concept of ‘normal retirement age’ at the time of transfer of a farm under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1) be interpreted as ‘the age required for entitlement to a retirement pension’ by a particular applicant under national legislation?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it in accordance with European Union law and the general principles of European Union law for ‘normal retirement age’ at the time of transfer of a farm to be determined differently for individual applicants depending on their sex and the number of children they have brought up? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it in accordance with European Union law and the general principles of European Union law for ‘normal retirement age’ at the time of transfer of a farm to be determined differently for individual applicants depending on their sex and the number of children they have brought up?

| 3. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what criteria should the national court take into account when interpreting the concept of ‘normal retirement age’ at the time of transfer of a farm under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what criteria should the national court take into account when interpreting the concept of ‘normal retirement age’ at the time of transfer of a farm under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations?

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80.

1

---
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE. COMMERCIAL USE Petitioner: Robert P. Barnett, Operation Freedom, LLC, President I hereby request an exemption to operate an unmanned aerial vehicle (DJI Phantom

3 ,DJI Inspire models) for limited commercial usage

.The vehicles weigh less than 55 pounds and

I do not intend to fly the vehicles over 400 feet ornear anyair traffic lanes

.I intend to usethe vehicles for real estate and nature photography with my business

,Operation Freedom, LLC, registered and located in the State of Washington. This exemption would be of benefit to the public for the service

I intend to provide in the real estate business, giving consumers and home sellers the marketing advantage of aerial photography
to sell and purchase homes

.Increases

in home sales benefit our public asawhole by funneling monies into local governments, providing jobs and creating

aboost in ourlocal economy

. I ama48 yearold police veteran who is awareand sensitive of the responsibility and concerns that our public has about unmanned aerial vehicles being operated
in ourskies and communities

.My business will operate in cooperation with my community,
as manyof them will be my customers. Sincerely, Robert P. Barnett President, Operation Freedom

,LLC 394 Vanderlin Drive Camano Island, WA 98282 gf,,{ ,;
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND THE CHIEF FINANCIAL

OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
Remi Barbier, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer and Peter S. Roddy, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Pain Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that to the best of our
knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Periodic Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic
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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 6, 2009/s/ REMI BARBIERRemi Barbier,Chairman of the Board of Directors,President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ PETER S. RODDYPeter S. Roddy,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees at the Monsanto Chemical Company, Dayton, Ohio, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On February 16, 2007, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) employees who were monitored or should have been monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation while working at Monsanto Chemical Company Units I, III, or IV in Dayton, Ohio, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days during the period from January 1, 1943, through December 31, 1949, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort.

                        This designation became effective on March 18, 2007, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384*1*                        (14)(C). Hence, beginning on March 18, 2007, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the Special Exposure Cohort.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to                         *OCAS@CDC.GOV.*

Dated: April 5, 2007.

John Howard, 

Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 07-1763 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-19-M
In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00031-CV

SHANNON BROOKS, Appellant

V.

CENTRE STATION APARTMENTS, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 17th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 017-332082-22

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties have filed an agreed motion with this Court stating that they have settled their 

disputes and seeking a voluntary dismissal of this appeal.1 Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we grant the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Scott E. Stevens

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: August 6, 2024

Date Decided: August 7, 2024

1Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme 

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.).
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 

the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category 

DATABASE REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598

DCN: SGE01182.A01 

Attachment file will be sent on CD.