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

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1487/2004

of 20 August 2004         

suspending the buying-in of butter in certain Member States

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 of 16 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in butter and cream (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Buying-in of butter as provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 is hereby suspended in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Article 2

Regulation (EC) No 1348/2004 is hereby repealed.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 August 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 August 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 333, 24.12.1999, p. 11. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1236/2004 (OJ L 235, 6.7.2004, p. 4).

(3)OJ L 250, 24.7.2004, p. 6.

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER GRANTING MOTION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

KAVU, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

OMNIPAK CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-109RSL

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO FILE AN OVERLENGTH

MEMORANDUM

This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s motion to file an overlength

motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. #45). Defendant asserts that it will need to address

complicated legal and factual issues in its motion, which it cannot do in the six pages

allotted by the Local Rule. The Court GRANTS the motion to file an overlength

memorandum. 

However, defendant’s motion, and its request to file a memorandum of 15 or more

pages, suggest that it plans to reargue many of the same facts, argument, and authority

considered in the motion for class certification. Instead, the motion should focus on

arguing the existence of manifest error in the prior ruling or new facts or legal authority

which could not have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable

Case 2:06-cv-00109-RSL Document 47 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER GRANTING MOTION - 2

diligence. Defendant may file a twelve page motion for reconsideration that must

otherwise comply with Local Rule 7(h). 

DATED this 5th day of February, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00109-RSL Document 47 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 2
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 193

Designating December 13, 1998, as ‘‘National Children’s Memorial Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 9, 1998

Mr. REID submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating December 13, 1998, as ‘‘National Children’s

Memorial Day’’.

Whereas approximately 79,000 infants, children, teenagers,

and young adults die each year in the United States;

Whereas the death of a child is one of the greatest tragedies

suffered by a family; and

Whereas support and understanding are critical to the healing process of a bereaved family: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates December 13, 1998, as ‘‘Na3 tional Children’s Memorial Day’’; and

4 (2) requests that the President issue a procla5 mation designating December 13, 1998, as ‘‘Na6 tional Children’s Memorial Day’’ and calls on the
2

•SRES 193 IS

1 people of the United States to observe the day with

2 appropriate ceremonies and activities in remem3 brance of infants, children, teenagers, and young

4 adults who have died.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Mata, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 652]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered July 6, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The People charged that on March 28, 1991, the defendant and two others robbed the complainant at gunpoint in the vestibule of his apartment building. The complainant picked the defendant’s picture out of a photographic array and subsequently identified him in a lineup. The prosecution failed to serve any CPL 710.30 notice on the defense with respect to the photographic array, but did serve timely notice regarding the lineup identification. The court held a *Wade*hearing during which both identification procedures were explored. Following the hearing, the court ruled that during the trial the *694complainant could testify to selecting the defendant from the lineup and could identify him in court, but that no reference could be made to the complainant’s photographic array identification.

On appeal, the defendant argues, among other things, that because of the violation of GPL 710.30, the complainant’s lineup identification should have been suppressed and his in-court identification should have been precluded. The defendant’s contention is without merit. The timely notice of the complainant’s lineup identification adequately alerted the defendant to the advisability, of inquiring into the details of earlier identification procedures which might have tainted the prospective in-court identification, even though the procedure for which no notice was given was properly excluded *(see, e.g., People v Tatum,*205 AD2d 397; *People v Smith,*149 Misc 2d 998, *affd*190 AD2d 701). Indeed, both identification procedures were thoroughly explored by defense counsel during the *Wade*hearing.

In addition, upon our review of the lineup photograph and the testimony adduced at the suppression hearing, we find that the hearing court properly denied suppression of the lineup identification of the defendant by the complainant *(see, e.g., People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 336, *cert denied*498 US 833; *People v Valdez,*204 AD2d 369; *People v Chalmers,*163 AD2d 528; *People v Rodriguez,*124 AD2d 611, 612).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Altman, J. P., Hart, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.51




                                                         November 16, 1999




Steven Roth
c/o Vornado Realty Trust
Park 80 West, Plaza II
Saddle Brook, N.J.  07663


Dear Mr. Roth:

This is to confirm our agreement that during the time of your employment with
Vornado Realty Trust (the "Company"), the Company hereby will disburse to you,
upon your written request, one or more loans (the "Loans") in an aggregate
amount up to FIFTEEN MILLION ($15,000,000). Each of such loans shall be on a
revolving principal basis subject to the following terms and conditions:

         a) each loan must be in an amount of at least FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
($500,000);

         b) the loan shall be full recourse to you;

         c) The principal amount of each loan shall be due and payable upon the
sixth anniversary of the loan's date of disbursement;

         d) each loan shall be subject to interest at the applicable Federal
rate under Section 1274(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, on
the date the loan is made;

         e) interest on each loan shall be payable quarterly as set forth under
Section 2 of the First Amended and Restated Promissory Note dated November 16,
1999 (the "Amended and Restated Promissory Note") enclosed herewith;

         f) the agreements evidencing such loans shall contain such additional
terms and conditions as are reasonably acceptable to you in good faith.

         The Loans granted pursuant hereto will be secured in accordance with
Section 4 of the Amended and Restated Promissory Note.




<PAGE>   2



         This letter, the Stock Pledge Agreement dated December 29, 1992, the
Amended and Restated Promissory Note and the other security or supporting
documents executed in conjunction therewith (collectively, the "Loan
Documents"), constitute the entire agreement between you and the Company with
respect to the subject matter hereof. You acknowledge that all understandings,
oral representations and agreements had between you and the Company are merged
and contained in the Loan Documents.

         Kindly confirm your agreement to the terms of this letter and by
signing the copy enclosed herewith and returning it to us.


                                          Very truly yours,



                                          VORNADO REALTY TRUST



                                          By: /s/ Irwin Goldberg
                                              ----------------------
                                              Name:  Irwin Goldberg
                                              Title: Vice President,
                                                     Chief Financial
                                                       Officer


AGREED AND ACCEPTED:



/s/ Steven Roth
---------------
Steven Roth
No. 63411.

protest 137320-K (Boston).

#### Moscahlades Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Donlon, Judge:

The merchandise of this suit is olives in brine, imported at Boston and there assessed with duty at 30 cents per gallon under paragraph 744 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as ripe olives. Plaintiff’s protest claims that these olives in brine are green, not ripe, and that they should be dutiable under paragraph 744 at 20 cents per gallon.

On trial in New York, plaintiff rested its case after adducing testimony of Mr. Adolphus Brook, vice president and managing director of plaintiff corporation, Moscahlades Bros., Inc. Mr. Brook testified that he is familiar with the olives of the import entry; that he examined a number of the barrels in which these olives were contained, and he found that they were Greek olives (Salona), exactly the same as and identical in all material respects to the (Salona) olives that were before the court in *Moscahlades Bros., Inc.*v. *United States,*39 Cust. Ct. 127, C.D. 1917. Pie further said that he had testified in the *Moscahlades*litigation.

At defendant’s request, the case was transferred to Boston, for the testimony of the examining officer. Before the Boston trial, the parties submitted on a written stipulation that the merchandise “is similar in all material respects” to the Greek olives (Salona) before the court in *Moscahlades Bros., Inc.*v. *United States, supra,*the record of which has been incorporated in the record herein.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of facts, on the testimony of record and on authority of the decision in *Moscahlades Bros., Inc.*v. *United States, supra,*we hold that the merchandise of this protest consists of olives in brine, green, dutiable at 20 cents per gallon under paragraph 744 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

The protest is sustained. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2  Certification of the Principal Financial Officer 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 periodic report of Xian Resources, Ltd., (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended May 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),Jay Lutsky, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/Jay Lutsky Principal Financial Officer Date: October 3, 2012
# Official Journal C 34A/1 Fe

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 34A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 641 February 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 34A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 641 February 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Ombudsman |
| 2021/C 34 A/01 | Notice of vacancy OMB/2/2021 – Director — Directorate for Administration in the European Ombudsman’s Office | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Ombudsman

2021/C 34 A/01

Notice of vacancy OMB/2/2021 – Director — Directorate for Administration in the European Ombudsman’s Office

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# Official Journal C 186/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 186 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6412 May 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 186

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6412 May 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 186/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Supplement 2021/5 (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2021/C 186/02 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Supplement 2021/5 (
  1
  ) | 43 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 186/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Supplement 2021/5 (
  1
  )

1

1

2021/C 186/02

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Supplement 2021/5 (
  1
  )

1

43

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
No. 59313.

protests 244790-K, etc. (New York).

#### Bertrand Freres, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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 this Form 10-K periodic
report ofRecon Technology, Ltd for the year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, I, Yin Shenping, certify that:



(1) This period report containing the financial statements 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
this period report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofRecon
Technology, Ltd.



Date: January 31, 2012



|/s/ Yin Shenping                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Yin Shenping
        Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 10.8.2


                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                   SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT AGREEMENT

                         Effective as of__________, 1999

         WHERESAS, the Connecticut Water Company (hereinafter referred to as the
"Employer") and ____________________ (hereinafter referred to as the "Employee")
entered into a Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement dated as of
___________, 199_ (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement in accordance with the
provisions of Section 5(a) thereof;

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual
covenants and agreements contained herein, the Agreement is hereby amended
effective as of the date first above written as follows:

         1. The second paragraph of Section 1(a) of the Agreement is amended to
            read in its entirety as follows:

         "For purposes of the foregoing, "Average Earnings" shall have the
         meaning set forth in the Retirement Plan, except that in determining
         Average Earnings, Annual Earnings (as defined in the Retirement Plan)
         shall not be limited to the OBRA '93 annual compensation limit."
No. 69310.

#### Everbest Jewelry Corp. and Surface Freight Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 330953-K and 58/20218 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cycle horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *G. Joannou Cycle Co. Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 25 Filed 07/21/11 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 25 Filed 07/21/11 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

GRADY EWING MAYS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Nos. 12-30224

 12-30349

D.C. Nos. 1:03-cr-00016-JDS

 1:12-cr-00001-RFC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Jack D. Shanstrom, District Judge, Presiding

Richard F. Cebull, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 24, 2013** 

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Grady Ewing Mays appeals from the district

court’s judgment revoking supervised release and the 120-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, in

FILED

OCT 02 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-30224 & 12-30349

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In

Appeal No. 12-30224, we vacate the district court’s judgment. In Appeal No. 

12-30349, we vacate Mays’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

The parties agree that the district court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate

Mays’s supervised release term in 2011. The parties further agree that the court

was therefore without authority to revoke Mays’s supervised release, and that

Mays was not under a criminal justice sentence when he failed to register as a sex

offender. We accordingly vacate the judgment revoking Mays’s supervised

release. We also vacate the sentence imposed upon Mays’s conviction for failure

to register and remand for resentencing. Upon remand, the district court shall

recalculate the Guidelines range without assessing Mays two points under U.S.S.G.

§ 4A1.1(d).

In light of our decision, we decline to reach Mays’s other arguments.

Appeal No. 12-30224 VACATED.

Appeal No. 12-30349 VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

August 14, 2013

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with GM regarding Tier 3

FROM: Michael Olechiw

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135

This memo documents a meeting held on August 14, 2013 between representatives of General 

Motors and EPA to discuss Tier 3.

The attendees are shown below. The agenda has been docketed as a separate .pdf. The purpose 

of the meeting was to clarify points in the Tier 3 rule.

Attendees:

Michael Olechiw EPA

Dave Belton GM

Bill Studzinski GM

Robert Babik GM

Chris Nevers EPA

Don Kopinski EPA

Chris Laroo EPA

David Wright EPA

Dave Good EPA

Steve Horetski GM

Andy Barren GM

Jim Ehlmann GM

Donald Nagy GM

Steve Fornetti GM

Glenn W. Passavant GM

Tony Fernandez EPA

Paul Machiele EPA

Tad Wysor EPA

Alan Stout EPA
EX 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 Annual Report of Sweet Spot Games, Inc. Corporation (the "Company") on Form  10-K  for the period ending June 30, 2009 has filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,  Gregory Galanis,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  President  and Director  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, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)     The  information  contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition  and  result  of  operations  of the Company.     Name & Title Date  /s/  Gregory Galanis ----------------- Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer), President, and Director September 03, 2010
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MALCOLM KING NELSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5159RBL 

 CR98-592RBL

 ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendant’s Motion To

Recall Mandate based on United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (Jan. 12, 2005).

Having considered the entirety of the record and files herein, the Court finds and rules as

follows:

Defendant seeks to have the Court vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. Defendant filed

a 2255 petition on January 22, 2002 (Dkt. No. 156). This Court construes Defendant’s motion as a

second or successive 2255 petition. Defendant has not sought leave to file a second or successive

2255 petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Court directs the clerks’ office to file Defendant’s motion and attached exhibits (Dkt.

#195) under case number C06-5159RBL.

The Defendant must obtain leave of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before filing any

Case 3:06-cv-05159-RBL Document 2 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

The court notes that Defendant’s convictions became final before Booker. The Supreme

Court has not made Booker retroactive to cases on collateral review. United States v. Cruz, 423

F.3d 1119, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2005). 

subsequent motions attacking his criminal conviction and sentence imposed in CR98-592RBL.1

Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this motion and, as such, it is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record, and to

any party appearing pro se.

DATED this 27th day of March, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05159-RBL Document 2 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2