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

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1053/2004

of 28 May 2004         

fixing the export refunds on malt

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 13(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on malt listed in Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 June 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 28 May 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1104/2003 (OJ L 158, 27.6.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 28 May 2004 fixing the export refunds on malt

----
# C_2015122EN.01000401.xml

| 16.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 24 September 2014

in Case E-1/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

v

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2006/38/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures)

(2015/C 122/05)

In Case E-1/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith, of all measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 18a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 24 September 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 18a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 18a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

| 2. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
1 July	31,	2015

Docket	Operations,	M

- 30 U.S. Department	of	Transportation (DOT) 1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	SE Room	W12

- 140,	West	Building	Ground	Floor Washington,	D.C.	20590

- 0001

RE: Amendment	to	StraightEdge	Aero,	LLC	Exemption	No.	12205.

Dear	Sir or	Madam :

StraightEdge	Aero ,	LLC	was	issued	an	exemption	under	Section	333	of	the	“FAA Modernization	and	Reform	Act	of	2012”	numbered 12205 for	the	purposes to conduct	aerial	photography	and	videography. StraightEdge	Aero ,	LLC,	hereby requests	an	amendment	to our	FAA E xemption	No. 12205 ,	Docket	No.	FAA

- 2015

- 1873 to	allow	additional	UAS	to	be	operated	in	full	compliance	with	the	conditions set	forth	within E xemption No.	12205

. StraightEdge	Aero ,	LLC	requests	permission	to	operate	the	following	UAS	based	on their	type,	size,	weight	and	speed	under the	same	terms	and	conditions	contained within Exemption	No.	12205 and	provided	by	the	parameters	set	forth	in	regards	to capabilities	and	limitations	identified	within	the	attached	manuals.

1. DJI	Phantom	3

2. DJI	S1000+ 3. 3DR Solo

Thank	you	for	your	time	and	c onsideration	with	our	request.	Feel	free	to	contact	us with	any	additional	questions.

Sincerely,

/s/	Nicholas	Flom

____________________________________
Nicholas	Flom Managing Partner

, StraightEdge	Aero ,	LLC
No. 51214.

#### Protests 49445-K, etc., of G. Sasso & Sons, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist o'f cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance of *2)4*percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese by the collector in computing the duty thereon to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings on the outside of the cheese. The protests were sustained to this extent.
# **Wheat Variety**

**
**Description:**          Includes a summary of fall planted wheat varieties and district tabulations           in PDF format. (Annual Report) You must have Adobe Acrobat to read these           files. A link is provided below to download a free version of Adobe           Acrobat. These files are also provided in an HTML format which requires           nothing additional to access.
- 2004 Wheat Variety  *(HTML)*  or  *(PDF)*
- 2003 Wheat Variety  *(HTML)*  or  *(PDF)*
- 2002 Wheat Variety  *(HTML)*  2001 Wheat Variety *(HTML)*2000 Wheat Variety 
*(HTML)*
- 1999 Wheat Variety  *(HTML)*  1998 Wheat Variety *(HTML)*

**
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

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

Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, William M. Lutz, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Salton, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Salton, Inc.


                                        By: /s/ William M. Lutz
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        William M. Lutz
                                        Chief Financial Officer

February 9, 2006

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. (the Exchange Act). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Salton, Inc. and will be retained by Salton, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       56
Before the Third Division

June 17, 1965

No. 69388.

#### Los Angeles Imp. Company *v.*United States,

protest 64/19101.

Donlon, Judge:

Defendant having filed, on May 10,1965, a motion praying the court to order stricken and physically return to plaintiff’s counsel certain direct interrogatories, filed by plaintiff on April 30, 1965, entitled “Direct Interrogatories to be Propounded to Julius Von Bngelbrechten, 2000 Hamburg 1, Ballin-damm 9, VI, Germany,” and “Direct Interrogatories to be Propounded to Franz Brucicdorfer, 8372 — Dreieck b. Zwiesel/Bavarian Forest, Post Box 40, Bavaria,” and

Plaintiff, in its reply to the motion, having made no contention either that any application for a commission to take testimony by interrogatories has been filed or granted, and

It appearing that the provisions of rule 21 have not been complied with and that plaintiff has made no motion in writing with accompanying affidavit, as rule 21 requires, and no commission or letters rogatory to take the testimony of Julius von Engelbrechten and/or of Franz Bruckdorfer has been issued, in the name of the President of the United States and under the seal of the court, to examine said witnesses or either of them, and the said direct interrogatories being without force or effect, now, therefore

It is Ordered that the said documents be stricken and the clerk is directed to return said documents to counsel for plaintiff.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAVID M. DAVIS

, §

§ No. 328 , 2014

Defendant

- Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below : Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware in and

v. § for New Castle County

§

STATE OF DELAWARE

, §

§

Plaintiff

- B elow, § Cr. ID No. 0207002276

Appellee. §

Submitted: July 21 , 2014

Decided: August 26 , 2014

Before STRINE

, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and VALIHURA

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 26th day of August 2014 , it appears to the Court that:

(1) In 200 3 , the appellant, David M. Davis, was convicted of three

counts of Rape in the First Degree and other offenses and was sentenced to a

total of sixty years at Level V followed by two years at decreasing levels of

supervision. On direct appe al, this Court affirmed Davis’ convictions and2

sentence. 1 T he Court has also affirmed the denial of Davis’ first and second

motions for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. 2

(2) Davis has appealed the Superior Court’s May 21, 2014 order

denying his motion for transcripts at State expense

. By notice dated June 20,

2014 , the Clerk directed that Davis show cause under Supreme Court Rule

29(b) why the appeal should not be dismissed based upon this Court’s lack

of jurisdiction to entert ain an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter.

(3) In his July 21, 2014 response to the notice to show cause, Davis

states that he needs the transcript to pursue further postconviction remedies.

Davis argues that, under the Delaware Constitution, this Court has

jurisdiction to determine all appeals from the Superior Court in criminal

cases, including his appeal from the May 21, 2014 denial of his motion for

transcripts at State expense.

( 4 ) Davis is mistaken. U nder the Delaware Constitution only a

final judgment may be reviewed by th e Court in a criminal case. 3 In this

case, t he Superior Court’s May 21, 2014 order den ying Davis’ motion for

1 Davis v. State , 200 4 WL 3021168 (Del. Dec. 30, 2004).

2 Davis v. State , 2013 WL 6410231 (Del. Dec. 5, 2013) (affirming denial of second

postconviction motion); Davis v. State , 2007 WL 2473224 (Del. Aug. 31, 2007)

(affirming denial of first postconviction motion).

3 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).3

transcripts is an interlocutory order

. 4 The denial of Davis’ motion for

transcripts is not appealable as a co llateral order before the entry of a final

order on a motion for postconviction relief. 5

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule

29(b), that th e appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

4 Accord Ridley v. State

, 2014 WL 1875483 (Del. May 6, 2014) (citing Del. Const. art.

IV, § 11(1)(b)) ; Browne v. State , 1992 WL 21146 (Del. Jan. 21, 1992) (citing Gannett

Co. , Inc. v. State , 565 A.2d 895, 899 (Del. 1989)).

5 See St. Louis v. State , 2012 WL 130877 (Del. Jan. 17, 201 2) (citing Robinson v. State

, 704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998)).
<PAGE>

                                  SYSTEMIX, INC
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.01

           SYSTEMIX' PRESS RELEASE RE: SYSTEMIX' INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS
                            NOT APPROVING SANDOZ OFFER


                                       16
<PAGE>

                              3155 Porter Drive             415.856.4901
                              Palo Alto, California 94304   FAX 415.856-4919

SYSTEMIX

 (LOGO)



Contact:       Wendy R. Hitchcock            Justin Jackson
               Chief Financial Officer       Reagan Codner
               SyStemix, Inc.                Burns McClellan
               (415) 813-4108                (212) 505-1919


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

      SYSTEMIX' INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS DETERMINE NOT TO APPROVE SANDOZ OFFER

Palo Alto, California, October 29, 1996 -- SyStemix, Inc. (NASDAQ: STMX)
announced today that its Independent Directors have informed the Company that
they have rejected the unsolicited offer by Sandoz Ltd. to acquire, at $17.00
per share, the outstanding shares of SyStemix that Sandoz does not already own.
The Independent Directors stated that their decision was based in part on the
advice of Lehman Brothers that the offer is inadequate and not fair to the
minority shareholders from a financial point of view, and that they remain
"willing to discuss an acquisition by Sandoz at an appropriate price."  Lehman
Brothers, the investment banking firm, was retained to assist the Independent
Directors in analyzing the Sandoz offer.

     The agreement by which Sandoz first acquired an interest in SyStemix
provides that the Board's membership shall include three independent members
(the "Independent Directors"), and that "any tender offer or merger or
acquisition proposal must be at a price that is fair to the stockholders of the
Company, and must be approved by a majority of the Independent Directors."
Sandoz currently owns approximately 73 percent of SyStemix' outstanding stock.
The proposal to purchase the remaining shares was made on May 23, 1996.

     The Independent Directors informed SyStemix that they had offered to share
in negotiations with Sandoz the data and analysis that inform Lehman Brothers'
and the Independent Directors' view of SyStemix' value.  They stated that Sandoz
had declined this invitation to negotiate, and had further declined to provide
them with any analysis of its own of the value of the Company's technology,
clinical program or market prospects.

     SyStemix, Inc., is engaged in the development of cellular and cell-based
gene therapies for cancer, AIDS and genetic diseases based on the use of
isolated, expanded and gene-modified hematopoietic stem cells.

                                       ###


                                       17
Before the Third Division,

December 19, 1967

No. P67/436.

#### Malt Diastase Company *v.*United States, protest 66/24285 (New York).

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of dehydrated leek similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Corn Products Co.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 152, C.D. 2567), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors

FCB Bancorp and Subsidiaries

We consent to the incorporation by reference
in Registration Statement number 333-141391 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 2, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of FCB Bancorp and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, comprehensive income, shareholders equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2006, which report is included in this annual report on Form 10-K of FCB Bancorp and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,
2006.



|                
|----------------
|LOGO            
|                
|Portland, Oregon
|April 2, 2007
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.3

                               SHOPKO STORES, INC.

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 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, the undersigned officer of ShopKo Stores, Inc.
(the "Company") certifies that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended April 30, 2005 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: June 3, 2005

                                          SHOPKO STORES, INC.

                                              /s/ Paul G. White
                                              -----------------
                                              Paul G. White
                                              Senior Vice President,
                                              Chief Merchandising Officer,
                                              Co-Chief Executive Officer*

      This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

* The office of Chief Executive Officer is comprised of three executive
officers, each serving as Co-Chief Executive Officer.

                                       31
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30825

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GLENDA D. SIMMONS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CR-5-B-M2

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1997

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Glenda D. Simmons appeals her sentence following a guilty

plea conviction for making false claims for federal income tax

refunds in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 287. Simmons contends

that the district court abused its discretion when it upwardly

departed from the applicable sentencing guidelines range. The

district court adequately articulated its reasons for arriving at

its final sentence by discussing the seriousness of Simmons’
No. 96-30825

- 2 -

prior convictions and its opinion that the applicable Criminal

History Category did not adequately reflect the seriousness and

extent of her past crimes. See United States v. Daughenbaugh, 49

F.3d 171, 175 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 258 (1995);

United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 662 (5th Cir. 1983)(en

banc). Since the district court offered acceptable reasons for

the departure and the departure was reasonable in light of the

circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion. See Lambert,

984 F.2d at 663. As no abuse of discretion has been shown, the

district court’s upward departure is AFFIRMED. See Daughenbaugh,

49 F.3d at 175. 

AFFIRMED.
Before the Third Division,

January 9, 1947

No. 51510.

#### Protests 5983-K, etc., of Yamate Brothers (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the frozen frogs the subject of *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610). In accordance therewith the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1558 was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 Quarterly Report of SWS Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 24, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald W. Hultgren, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |                        
|----------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 3, 2005 |  | /S/ Donald W. Hultgren 
|                  |  | Donald W. Hultgren     
|                  |  | Chief Executive Officer