alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

(2004/C 84 E/0416)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0308/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   The French language at the Commission

If my information is correct, the Commission intends to spend more than EUR 20 million on French courses for its employees. On what basis does the Commission train its staff specifically to improve their command of French, and does it intend to promote the position of French at the expense of other languages within the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

The Honourable Member's information is not correct, and neither are the similar figures that have recently appeared in some newspapers, together with misleading reports about French as a working language of the Commission.

The Commission has not taken any decision which gives or will give the teaching of French a privileged place by comparison with that of the other official languages.

Courses for each language for each year are planned on the basis of the previous year's take up. Apart from demand from staff seeking to improve language skills the only other factor taken into account is the budget limit set for language training. For 2003 this was EUR 5 000 000. French courses accounted for 23 % of the total in 2003, English for 20 %, Spanish for 10 %, German for 10 % and the remaining 37 % was used for courses in 28 other languages.

For some languages demand does not noticeably vary. For others, principally English, French and the languages of the acceding countries, there has been an average increase in demand of about 10 % a year since 2001. This trend will probably strengthen from 2004 following enlargement and entry into force of the new Staff Regulations which give increased importance to multilingualism, particularly by requiring officials to attain the ability to work in a third Community language before a first promotion can be secured.

It should be noted that the priority given to a staff member's language training provided or financed by the Commission depends, and will continue to depend, on the requirements of the job that he or she does (1).

Clearly, it is not possible to estimate precisely which languages will be most in demand in the immediate future. The Commission assures the Honourable Member that it will continue to be committed to providing its staff with accessible opportunities for learning or developing their capabilities in all the official languages.

----

(1)  Commission Decision on staff training C(2002) 1577 of 7 May 2002.

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 576

#### Editorial Note:

For an interpretation document regarding part 576, see 40 FR 3296, Jan. 21, 1975.

#### § 576.1 Scope.

This part establishes requirements for the retention by manufacturers of motor vehicles and of motor vehicle equipment, of claims, complaints, reports, and other records concerning alleged and proven motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment defects and malfunctions that may be related to motor vehicle safety.

[67 FR 45872, July 10, 2002]
§ 531.4 Definitions. ( a ) *Statutory terms.* ( 1 ) The terms *average fuel economy, manufacture, manufacturer,* and *model year* are used as defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901.
( 2 ) The terms *automobile* and *passenger automobile* are used as defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901 and in accordance with the determination in part 523 of this chapter.
( b ) *Other terms.* As used in this part, unless otherwise required by the context— ( 1 ) The term *domestically manufactured passenger automobile* means the vehicle is deemed to be manufactured domestically under 49 U.S.C. 32904(b)(3) and 40 CFR 600.511-08.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[89 FR 52945, June 24, 2024]
# Supplemental table Total & EC

# Measures of Samp. Variability
###### Editorial Note on Part 365

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 365 appear at 66 FR 49870, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 365.207 Withdrawal.

A protestant wishing to withdraw from a proceeding shall inform the FMCSA and applicant in writing.
I= CJ2 

April12, 2013 

To: Department of Transportation: 

I am a fairly new Lewistown City Commissioner and Airport Board member. 

If Lewistown loses our air service, we will not have any public transportation out of 

town. 

I do not know who chose Silver Airways, but it has not been beneficial for Lewistown. 

The airline is consistently late. The pilots seem to have problems with adverse weather 

conditions. 

I would like to see a one or two year extension with Great Lakes Airline as our carrier. 

When they were our carrier before, they flew to Denver and our hoardings were very good. 

Sincerely, 

Diana M. C. Hewitt
Editorial Note on Part 572
Editorial Notes: 1. For compliance provisions relating to a vehicle's conformance with the performance requirements of Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) relating to the part 572 test dummy, see the “Effective Date Note” at subpart E of this part. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 572 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 572.42 Thorax. ( a ) When the thorax of a completely assembled dummy (SA-SID-M001A revision A, dated May 18, 1994, incorporated by reference; see § 572.40), appropriately assembled for right or left side impact, is impacted by a test probe conforming to § 572.44(a) at 14 fps in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the peak accelerations at the location of the accelerometers mounted on the thorax in accordance with § 572.44(b) shall be: ( 1 ) For the accelerometer at the top of the Rib Bar on the struck side (LUR or RUR) not less than 37 g's and not more than 46 g's.
( 2 ) For the accelerometer at the bottom of the Rib Bar on the struck side (LLR or RLR) not less than 37 g's and not more than 46 g's.
( 3 ) For the lower thoracic spine (T12) not less than 15 g's and not more than 22 g's.
( b ) Test Procedure. ( 1 ) Adjust the dummy legs as specified in § 572.44(f). Seat the dummy on a seating surface as specified in § 572.44(h) with the limbs extended horizontally forward.
( 2 ) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test probe at the lateral side of the chest at the intersection of the centerlines of the third rib and the Rib Bar on the desired side of impact. This is the left side if the dummy is to be used on the driver's side of the vehicle and the right side if the dummy is to be used on the passenger side of the vehicle. The probe's centerline is perpendicular to thorax's midsagittal plane.
( 3 ) Align the test probe so that its longitudinal centerline coincides with the line formed by the intersection of the transverse and frontal planes perpendicular to the chest's midsagittal plane passing through the designated impact point.
( 4 ) Position the dummy as specified in § 572.44(h), so that the thorax's midsagittal plane and tangential plane to the Hinge Mounting Block (Drawing SID-034) are vertical.
( 5 ) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that at the moment of impact at the designated impact point, the probe's longitudinal centerline falls within 2 degrees of a horizontal line perpendicular to the dummy's midsagittal plane and passing through the designated impact point.
( 6 ) Guide the probe during impact so that it moves with no significant lateral, vertical or rotational movement.
( 7 ) Allow a time period of at least 20 minutes between successive tests of the chest.
[59 FR 52091, Oct. 14, 1994, as amended at 59 FR 52091, Oct. 14, 1994]
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of Hampton's Luxury Homes, Inc..
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Frank Dalene, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

1.       The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


/s/ Frank Dalene
Frank Dalene
Chief Financial Officer
June 9, 2005
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.5


                                      PROXY

Principal: Danian Chen
ID Number: 310115197805162096
Address:   Room 203, Number 29, 149 Nong, Pudian Road, Pudong New Area,
           Shanghai, PRC

Agent:     Qunzhao Tan
ID Number: 310104197603295617
Address:   47 Nanchang Road, Luwan District, Shanghai, PRC

       The undersigned, Danian Chen, being a citizen of the People's Republic of
China, hereby grants an irrevocable proxy to Mr. Qunzhao Tan to exercise as a
shareholder of Shanghai Shanda Networking Co., Ltd. ("Shanda Networking") the
right to appoint directors, the general manager and other officers of Shanda
Networking during shareholders' meetings of Shanda Networking within the term of
this Proxy.

       The proxy granted hereby shall be conditioned upon the employment
relationship between Mr. Qunzhao Tan and Shengqu Information Technology
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd. ("Shengqu") and shall be subject to Shengqu's consent. Once
Mr. Qunzhao Tan ceases to be an employee of Shengqu or Shengqu delivers a
written notice to the undersigned requesting a termination of this proxy, the
undersigned shall revoke the proxy granted hereunder immediately and grant the
rights and powers provided hereunder to another PRC citizen employed and
designated by Shengqu.

       In exercising the rights and powers provided hereunder, Mr. Qunzhao Tan
shall act with due care and diligence pursuant to this proxy and applicable
laws, and indemnify and keep the undersigned harmless from any loss or damage
caused by any action in connection with the exercise of any rights provided
hereunder (unless such loss or damage is caused by any intentional or material
negligent actions of the undersigned).

       The term of this Proxy shall be 20 years from the execution date of this
Proxy.


                                                             -------------
                                                              Danian Chen
                                                              [signature]

                                                              Dec 30, 2004
----

(2004/C 88 E/0418)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2476/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject:   Reduced VAT for hotels, restaurants and cafés in the European Union

At present, hotel and catering services are included in Annex H to the Sixth VAT Directive.

On the basis of that Directive, 12 of the 15 Member States have decided to apply a VAT rate below 15 % for this category of services, but it is clear that the disparity in the rates applicable in the various countries is leading to unequal treatment which may distort competition in the industry, which is highly sensitive to any kind of tax-related question.

Will the Commission take action, on the basis of its power of initiative, with a view to suggesting to the Member States that they take account of the accumulation of circumstances which affect the hotel sector so that the VAT rate applicable to the sector is as low as possible?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2003)

In its 2000 communication the Commission set out a strategy to improve the operation of the value-added tax (VAT) system in the context of the internal market (1).

No changes in the level of VAT rates are envisaged during the implementation of this strategy. Mindful of the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission does not wish to interfere with the Member States' fiscal competence any more than is necessary for the smooth operation of the internal market, especially as regards the VAT rates the Member States wish to set.

However, it is the role of the Commission to propose to the Council any rules necessary for the smoother operation of the internal market. The Commission has therefore chosen to focus on the disparities in present system of rates with a view to making an important step in this direction. More equal treatment must be ensured in all the Member States, including the new members, and a stop put to the distortions created by the fact that some may apply reduced rates for certain sectors that are elsewhere prohibited.

Accordingly, on 23 July 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on reduced rates (2). Catering services have now been added to hotel services on the new list of goods and services eligible for the reduced rate. In any event, the reduced rates remain entirely optional and it is therefore up to the Member States to decide on the sectors where they wish to apply reduced rates.

The Council now has to decide unanimously on the future scope of reduced VAT rates.

----

(1)  COM(2000) 348 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 397 final.

----
§ 599.603 Disposition of requests for exception. ( a ) *In general.* Upon receipt of the request for exception, the agency will review the request to determine whether the exception should be granted and approved for payment.
( b ) *Deciding official.* The NHTSA Administrator or his or her designee shall serve as the Deciding Official for all determinations under this subpart.
( c ) *Incomplete requests.* A request for exception that fails to include all of the documents required under this subpart may be rejected without further review.
( d ) *Denied requests.* If the Deciding Official denies the request, the requester will be informed in writing of the reasons for the denial of the request.
( e ) *Granted requests.* If the Deciding Official grants the request, the requester will be notified by electronic mail, at the e-mail address identified in § 599.200(c)(2)(iii), and the requester's application for reimbursement will be processed for payment by the agency as a qualifying transaction in accordance with § 599.304.
( f ) *No appeals.* There are no appeals from the Deciding Official's decision.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00395-CV

D. L.-B., Appellant

v.

T. D. and J. D., Appellees

FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY 

NO. 18-A-471, THE HONORABLE CHRIS SCHNEIDER, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant D. L.-B. filed her notice of appeal on June 10, 2019. The appellate 

record was complete on June 27, 2019, making appellant’s brief due on July 17, 2019. On 

July 17, 2019, counsel for appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief.

The Court granted the motion and ordered appellant’s counsel to file appellant’s brief no later 

than August 7, 2019. On August 6, 2019, appellant’s counsel filed a second motion requesting 

additional time to file appellant’s brief because the appellate record is sealed, and appellant’s 

counsel is physically handicapped, making it challenging for him to travel to the Third Court of 

Appeals to view the record. Accordingly, appellant’s counsel also requested that the Court make 

an accommodation for him and provide a hard copy or a CD of the trial exhibits to him by 

certified mail.
2

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals 

from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days 

for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting 

extensions. However, under these particular circumstances, we will grant the motion. The Court 

will provide a copy of the sealed record to appellant’s counsel, provided that counsel signs the 

Court’s sealed-document acknowledgement form. We order counsel to keep the record

confidential and use it solely for the purpose of this appeal. We further order counsel to file 

appellant’s brief no later than August 27, 2019. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may 

be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on August 14, 2019.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Triana and Smith
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

In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of Hampton's Luxury Homes, Inc..
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2001 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roy
Dalene, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

1.       The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


/s/ Roy Dalene
Roy Dalene
Chief Executive Officer
May 27, 2005
§ 6.21 Documentation of fees and expenses. ( a ) The application shall be accompanied by full documentation of the fees and expenses, including the cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, project or similar matter, for which an award is sought.
( b ) The documentation shall include an affidavit from any attorney, agent, or expert witness representing or appearing in behalf of the party, stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were computed and describing the specific services performed. ( 1 ) The affidavit shall state the services performed. In order to establish the hourly rate, the affidavit shall state the hourly rate which is billed and paid by the majority of clients during the relevant time periods.
( 2 ) If no hourly rate is paid by the majority of clients because, for instance, the attorney or agent represents most clients on a contingency basis, the attorney or agent shall provide information about two attorneys or agents with similar experience, who perform similar work, stating their hourly rate.
( c ) The documentation shall also include a description of any expenses for which reimbursement is sought and a statement of the amounts paid and payable by the applicant or by any other person or entity for the services provided.
( d ) The administrative law judge may require the applicant to provide vouchers, receipts, or other substantiation for any expenses claimed.
( e ) The administrative law judge may, within his or her discretion, make a determination as to whether a study, conducted by the applicant, was necessary to the preparation of the applicant's case.
#### § 585.67 Records.

Each manufacturer must maintain records of the Vehicle Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is reported under § 585.66(b)(2) until December 31, 2009.
§ 625.33 Investment prioritization. ( a ) A TAM plan must include an investment prioritization that identifies a provider's programs and projects to improve or manage over the TAM plan horizon period the state of good repair of capital assets for which the provider has direct capital responsibility.
( b ) A provider must rank projects to improve or manage the state of good repair of capital assets in order of priority and anticipated project year.
( c ) A provider's project rankings must be consistent with its TAM policy and strategies.
( d ) When developing an investment prioritization, a provider must give due consideration to those state of good repair projects to improve that pose an identified unacceptable safety risk when developing its investment prioritization.
( e ) When developing an investment prioritization, a provider must take into consideration its estimation of funding levels from all available sources that it reasonably expects will be available in each fiscal year during the TAM plan horizon period.
( f ) When developing its investment prioritization, a provider must take into consideration requirements under 49 CFR 37.161 and 37.163 concerning maintenance of accessible features and the requirements under 49 CFR 37.43 concerning alteration of transportation facilities.
H. Res. 312

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

December 12, 2001.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 2883) to authorize appropriations for fiscal

year 2002 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of

the United States Government, the Community Management

Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and

Disability System, and for other purposes. All points of order

against the conference report and against its consideration

are waived.

Attest:

Clerk.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JERMAINE L. WILLIAMSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1695

[February 8, 2024]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Robert Meadows, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 312016CF001460A. 

Jermaine L. Williamson, Madison, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FE BRUARY 14, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00320

- CR

Javier Cabrera Moya, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, RO SE, AND GOODWIN
AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction e ntered by the tr i a l court on April 18, 2013

.
Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no

reversible error in the court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial

court’s judgment of convi ction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no

adjudication of costs is made.
From: Joe Van Tol [mailto:joevt@valleymachining.com] 

Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 9:32 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule

The Employee Stock Ownership community has some concerns regarding the current propose

rulings regarding ESOP fiduciaries.

The proposed ruling would make individuals/firms providing appraisal and/or financial advisory

services to an ESOP company fiduciaries.

As an ESOP company, Valley Machining Company is not in agreement with this proposed

legislation.  Our experience as an ESOP has made us a strong, vibrant and responsible company.

We feel that this ruling would add to our already burdensome costs in maintaining our ESOP.  

ESOP’s should be promoted as they give opportunities to employees that are unmatched with

other ownership structures.  The additional costs and question marks regarding this rule will

possibly lessen these opportunities.

Thank You.

Joe Van Tol

Finance Manager

Valley Machining Company

ph.    (712)476‐2828

fax    (712)476‐2829

cell    (712)541‐1487

email joevt@valleymachining.com

web   www.valleymachining.com
§ 604.28 Dismissals. ( a ) Within 20 days after the receipt of a complaint described in § 604.27, the Office of the Chief Counsel shall provide reasons for dismissing a complaint, or any claim in the complaint, with prejudice, under this section if: ( 1 ) It appears on its face to be outside the jurisdiction of FTA under the Federal Transit Laws;
( 2 ) On its face it does not state a claim that warrants an investigation or further action by FTA; or
( 3 ) The complainant lacks standing to file a complaint under subparts B, C, or D of this part.
( b ) [Reserved]