alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Central Command

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  ABOUT US    -  COMMAND PRIORITIES             
  -  LEADERSHIP             
  -  COMPONENT COMMANDS             
  -  HISTORY             
  -  POSTURE STATEMENT 
-  CENTCOM AOR    -  CENTCOM COALITION 
-  OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES    -  USMTM             
  -  CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT 
-  CONTACT    -  OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT             
  -  COMMUNITY RELATIONS             
  -  THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE             
  -  INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL             
  -  MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL 
-  MEDIA    -  SOCIAL MEDIA             
  -  NEWS ARTICLES             
  -  PRESS RELEASES             
  -  STATEMENTS             
  -  IMAGERY             
  -  VIDEOS             
  -  TRANSCRIPTS 
-  VISITORS AND PERSONNEL    -  FAMILY CENTER             
  -  FAMILY READINESS             
  -  CENTCOM WEBMAIL             
  -  SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY             
  -  ACCOUNTABILITY             
  -  EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS             
  -  USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS             
  -  FOIA LIBRARY             
  -  INNOVATION OASIS             
  -  WELCOME GUIDE 

Search

Search

                            - All Images 
                            - Community Relations 
                            - Other 
                            - PreviousCommanders 

                            - Upload Date
                            - Photo Date
                            - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (2.36 MB)

Tags:AAVs, Battalion Landing Team 3/1, Kilo Company, VMM 166, Lima Company, Weapons Company, CH-53, ARG, Command Element, USS Anchorage, BLT 3/1, Arty, Heuy, Motivate, Seamen, F-35B Lighting II, VMFA 211, Sailors, U.S. Marines, U.S. Navy, Osprey, F-35, Marine Corps, Marines, BLT, MV-22, CE, Pacific Ocean, Super Stallion, 7th Fleet, UH-60, 13th MEU, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, USS Rushmore, Anchorage, Motivation, India Company, Tanks, Bravo Company, Rushmore, Essex, USS Essex, Amphibious Ready Group, Navy Marine Corps Team, Wake Island, 13th MEU CE, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit Command Element, Assault Amphibious Vehicle Detachment, Artillery Detachment, Bravo, Tank Detachment, Combat Logisitics Battalion 13, CLB 13, Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 166 Reinforced, Marine Fighter Attack Detachment 211, Motivating, Good Photos, The Essex ARG, The Essex Amphibious Ready Group, Petty Officers, Tactical

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
ARTICLE 2. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS; AREA DESIGNATIONS; CLASSIFICATIONS R18 - 2 - 201. Particulate Matter: PM10 and PM2.5 A. PM10 Standards 1. The level of the primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for PM10 is 150 micrograms per cubic meter of PM10 - 24 - hour average concentration. 2. To determine attainment of the primary and secondary standards, a person shall measure PM10 in the a mbient air by: a. A reference method based on 40 CFR 50, Appendix J, and designated according to 40 CFR 53; or b. An equivalent method designated according to 40 CFR 53. 3. The primary and secondary 24 - hour ambient air quality standards for PM10 are attain ed when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24 - hour average concentration above 150 micrograms per cubic meter, determined according to 40 CFR 50, Appendix K, is less than or equal to one. B. PM2.5 Standards 1. The primary ambient air qual ity standards for PM2.5 are: a. 15 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 - annual arithmetic mean concentration. b. 35 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 - 24 - hour average concentration. 2. The secondary ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 are: a. 15 mi crograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 - annual arithmetic mean concentration. b. 35 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 - 24 - hour average concentration. 3. To determine attainment of the primary and secondary standards, a person shall measure PM2.5 in the ambi ent air by: a. A reference method based on 40 CFR 50, Appendix L, and designated according to 40 CFR 53; or b. An equivalent method designated according to 40 CFR 53. 4. The primary and secondary annual ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 are met when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, determined according to 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 15 micrograms per cubic meter. 5. The primary and secondary 24 - hour ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 are met when the 98th percentile 2 4 - hour concentration, determined according to 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 35 micrograms per cubic meter. Historical Note Amended effective December 22, 1976 (Supp. 76 - 5). Former Section R9 - 3 - 201 repealed, new Section R9 - 3 - 201 adopted ef fective May 14, 1979 (Supp. 79 - 1). Amended effective October 2, 1979 (Supp. 79 - 5). Editorial correction, subsection (E) (Supp. 80 - 2). Amended effective August 29, 1980 (Supp. 80 - 4). Amended subsection(B)(1) and deleted subsections (C) through (E) effective September 22, 1983 (Supp. 83 - 5). Former Section R9 - 3 - 201 renumbered without change as Section R18 - 2 - 201 (Supp. 87 - 3). Amended effective September 26, 1990 (Supp. 90 - 3). Amended by final rulemaking at 11 A.A.R. 3305, effective October 3, 2005 (Supp. 05 - 3). Section corrected to include subsection (B), which was inadvertently omitted in Supp. 05 - 3 (Supp. 07 - 4). Amended by final rulemaking at 18 A.A.R. 1542, effective August 7, 2012 (Supp. 12 - 2).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          535,700
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          1,701
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              92,972
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>           101,256
<OTHER-ASSETS>                         599
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     732,228
<COMMON>                             5,848
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>          117,817
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 71,851
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     195,516
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               35,000
<PREFERRED>                          2,044
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>               181,373
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                  82,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>        8,876
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>              0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                         0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     227,419
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      732,228
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          147,002
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                12,608
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         111,002
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         123,610
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>             23,392
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                       0
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>      23,392
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             5,027
<NET-INCOME>                        18,365
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>            771
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>       17,594
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             4,200
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            3,833
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>              48,905
<EPS-BASIC>                         7.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                         7.52


</TABLE>
No. 334.

#### Lanza et al. *v.*Wagner, Mayor of New York City, et al.

*Vito F. Lanza, pro se,*and *Samuel Shapiro*for petitioners.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz,*Attorney General of New York, *Irving Galt,*Assistant Solicitor General, *Sheldon Raab,*Deputy Assistant Attorney General, *Leo A. Larkin*and *Seymour B. Quel*for respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
# C

C i’lai:j•’iand Departnent
of Planning .1a,th, 0 1a//ey

Richard Eberhar/ Ha/I (;o1’e,-,Ior .—I1/hoIi) C;. Bnin’,i

/1a/thtwJ. Power IJ. Gorernor

Deputy Secretcnj March 12, 2008 Ms. Deborah Rabin Regulations Coordinator, Air and Radiation Management Administration Maryland Department
of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard Suite 730 Baltimore, MD 21230 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS State Application Identifier: MD200803 11-0202 Project Description: Implementation, Maintenance, Enforcement
of PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard SIP: meet obligations regarding Clean Air Act; Section

B of the proposed plan entitled ‘Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System: public hearing 3/26/08 Project Location: Maryland Clearinghouse Contact: Bob Rosenbush Dear Ms. Rabin: Thank you for submitting your project for intergovernmental review. Participation

in the Maryland Intergovernmental Review and .oordination (MIRC) process helps ensure project consistency with plans, programs, and objectives of State agencies and local governments. Notice of your application

is being provided
to State and local public officials through the In1erovernmental Monitor, which
is a weekly Internet publication identif’ing projects received by the State Clearinghouse
for Intergovernmental Assistance. This document may be viewed at http://www.mdp.state.rnd.us/CLHOUSE/rnonitor_fyO4.htrn.

The project has been assigned

a unique State Application Identifier that should be used on all documents and correspondence. All MIRC requirements have been met in accordance with Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR 14.24.04) and this concludes the review process for the above referenced project. If you need assistance
or have questions, contact the State Clearinghouse staff person noted above at 410-767-4490

or through e-mail at brosenbush/mdp.state.md.us.
Thank you for your cooperation with the MIRC process.
Sincerely,

1 /;1/ Linda C. Janey, J.D.. Assistant Secretary for Clearinghouse and Communications LCJ:13R cc: U.S. Environmental Proteci.ion Agency— Ms. Kathleen Blinebury O8-O2O2A’,vt rVEW doc

301 West Presto,i Street

• Suite 1101

• Baltimore, Mary/and 21201-2305 Telephone: 410. 67.4500

• Fa.’. 410. 764480

• To//Free. 1.877.767.6272

• TTY LJse,:r: Ma 0 ’/and Rr/qy In/ewet: www.21DP. state.md. us
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-734

_____________________________

JOVAN HOWARD,

Appellant,

v.

THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, Julie L. Jones, 

Secretary,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Andrew J. Decker, III, Judge.

June 25, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jovan Howard, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee; Kenneth S. Steely, 

General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.
From: Lisa [mailto:her-n-me@netulink.com] 

Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 12:57 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33 comment

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in Retirement Plans

My first impression is that this is a worthwhile avenue to pursue for the financial security of employees. 

However, that said, since employers have been moving away from defined plans for many years due to 

costs associated with those plans, I have to wonder how they are going to take to another requirement that 

puts additional demands on their bottom line - i.e., costs them anything! Additionally, annuities have not 

had a stellar reputation due to fees and other associated costs, so it would be imperative that these 

details are made clear to employees who might be interested in the option for their retirement funds. Given 

that the administration has yet to take any aggressive, positive action to bring the financial community in 

line via regulations after the debacle of the last few years, has not been able/willing to deal with credit 

default swap fixes, etc., I don't have much faith in the government being able to deal well with this and 

provide a system/program that actually serves the needs of America's workers. I'd like to see the 

administration fixing/correcting the problems we have now before foisting another problem on employers 

and employees.

Lisa Rutherford
DR. BRADLEY K. RETHWILL 

CHIROPRACTIC PHYSICIAN 

2375 OAKMONT WAY 

EUGENE, OREGON 97401 

(541) 345-1669 -FAX (541) <::S4'+-ts:j~;'!1 

August 9, 2010 

Office of Consumer Infonnation and Insurance0versight 


Department of Health and Human Services 


Attention: OCnn·'-9991-IFt> 


P.O, Box 8016 


-nrufimore,MD-Zl 244= lX5{f 


ORe: Interim FinalRule for Group Health Plans and' Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Giandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

As ~coI1surner I'wish to take this opportunity to fonnally comment on 

the interim final rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document ID IRS-20 10­

'0010-0001). '. 

,J beHeve the con~umer protections included as part of the new health care law are vitally 

'"important and should be extended to as many:people as possible: Accordingly, every effort 

should be made to increase.the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and 

AffO"rdable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. Ibe triggers or conditions that would 

extend these protections to consumers Ulider currently ~xisting "grandfathered" plans should not 

be weakened or reduced iriany way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association withrespect to the implementation ofthese 

regulations . 

. BradleyK. Rttw~'II' .C, •.. ··•

-.~.~~.- ... ,: .l~· ' .. ,~-,\,i~{)I~''"'C'"'' . . . . : 

. 

~ . . . . 

. .
From: anita simons

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: preventive care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:57:11 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

-- 

anita simons
REV HOLDINGSLLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof REV Holdings LLC (the "Company") for theperiod ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Todd J. Slotkin, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Todd J.Slotkin                     Todd J.SlotkinChief Financial OfficerNovember 12,2004

----
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Central Command

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  ABOUT US    -  COMMAND PRIORITIES             
  -  LEADERSHIP             
  -  COMPONENT COMMANDS             
  -  HISTORY             
  -  POSTURE STATEMENT 
-  CENTCOM AOR    -  CENTCOM COALITION 
-  OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES    -  USMTM 
-  CONTACT    -  OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT             
  -  COMMUNITY RELATIONS             
  -  THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE             
  -  INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL             
  -  MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL 
-  MEDIA    -  SOCIAL MEDIA             
  -  NEWS ARTICLES             
  -  PRESS RELEASES             
  -  STATEMENTS             
  -  IMAGERY             
  -  VIDEOS             
  -  TRANSCRIPTS 
-  VISITORS AND PERSONNEL    -  FAMILY CENTER             
  -  FAMILY READINESS             
  -  CENTCOM WEBMAIL             
  -  SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY             
  -  ACCOUNTABILITY             
  -  EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS             
  -  USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS             
  -  FOIA LIBRARY             
  -  INNOVATION OASIS             
  -  WELCOME GUIDE 

HomeMEDIANEWS ARTICLESNews Article View

# Bahrain King Visits Naval Forces Central Command

By Petty Officer 1st Class Daniel HintonU.S. Naval Forces Central Command / U.S. 5th Fleet

                MANAMA, Bahrain  –              

                His Majesty, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, the King of the Kingdom of Bahrain, center, Vice Adm. Jim Malloy, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, U.S. 5th Fleet, right, and the U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Bahrain, the honorable Justin Siberell, pose for a photo during a visit to discuss operations in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations. The King was accompanied by two of his sons, His Highness Maj. Gen. Shaikh Nasser bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, commander of the Bahraini Royal Guard, and His Highness Lt. Col. Shaikh Khaled bin Hamad Al Khalifa, commander of the Bahraini Royal Guard Rapid Intervention Force along with other top Bahraini military leaders. Bahrain has been a partner with the United States in regional maritime security for more than 70 years. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Dawson Roth/Released)            

                Bahrain King Visits Naval Forces Central Command            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Petty Officer 3rd Class Dawson R

VIRIN: 190819-N-KZ419-1051

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
Order entered September 12, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00207

- CV

REGINA WREN , Appellant

V.

MIDWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY, ET AL. , Appellee s

On Appeal f

rom the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 20

- 05447

O RDER

On August 23, 2022, a clerk’s record correcting errors in the original record

was filed. Accordingly, we STRIKE the original record filed May 9, 2022.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
NUMBER 13-20-00401-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE AARON J. SHILLINGS

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

On September 15, 2020, the 36th District Court of Bee County accepted a guilty 

plea of petitioner Aaron J. Shillings in cause number S-20-3024-CR, and sentenced him 

to two years in state jail, probated for five years. On September 21, 2020, Shillings filed 

a “Writt [sic] of Habeas” in this Court, generally alleging prosecutorial misconduct and 

ineffective assistance of counsel. He further alleged that the trial court judge “refused to 

allow [him] to withdraw plea, and threatened [him] with contempt of court for trying to tell 

[the court] he did not agree to plea.” 
2

The courts of appeals do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal 

matters; original jurisdiction is vested in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the district 

courts, the county courts, or a judge in those courts. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05; 

In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356, 356 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (per 

curiam); see also In re Bell, No. 13-18-00424-CR, 2018 WL 3725242, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 6, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 

There is no record of Shillings having filed a notice of appeal in the trial court. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.2, 26.3. Accordingly, we dismiss Shillings’s petition for want of jurisdiction. See In 

re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d at 357; see also In re Bell, 2018 WL 3725242, at *1.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed this the

29th day of September, 2020.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company

Order affirmed.
----

(2004/C 84 E/0922)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/04

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Inconsistencies in the Community Customs Code (CCC)

In a number of instances, disputes arise between the customs authorities and taxable persons as to whether or not customs duties are owed. Where, after years and years of litigation, it is shown that the persons concerned were indeed liable to pay customs duties (pursuant to Article 236 of the CCC), that does not preclude the possibility that special conditions exist which make the payment of customs duties unreasonable for the persons concerned (pursuant to Article 239 of the CCC).

Where a debtor submits an application pursuant to Article 239 of the CCC for the repayment of the customs duties levied, this is usually declared inadmissible on the grounds that the debtor did not submit the appropriate application within one year from the date on which the amount of the duties was communicated to him, as laid down in Article 239 of the CCC. The customs authorities argue thus: if the debtor has been issued with a demand for payment with which he disagrees, proceedings must be initiated in order to prove that the amount demanded was not legally owed (pursuant to Article 236 of the CCC). Subsequently, an application must be submitted in accordance with Article 239 of the CCC to ensure that the deadlines are properly applied. In my opinion, that gives rise to a rather anomalous situation. In the appeal (and the further course of the procedure), the debtor argues that he is not liable for the customs duties levied; subsequently, in order not to forfeit his rights, the debtor has to submit a claim (pursuant to Article 239 of the CCC) in which he actually admits to being liable for the duties but claims that special conditions exist which should exempt him from having to pay the customs duties levied. Given the all-embracing scope of Article 239 of the CCC, I cannot believe that that was ever the objective of the measure.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

----

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.

----