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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service 

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board will hold a meeting on Thursday, February 8, 2007. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app.2. 

The meeting agenda includes the following:

(1) Welcome/Introductions 

(2) Background from Previous Meeting 

(3) Discussions on Prioritizing Strategies for Environmental Education 

(4) Discussion on Potential Environmental Education Action Items 

(5) FS Feedback on Proposed Strategic Plan for Environmental Education 

(6) Board Discussion on Public Comments Received 

(7) LBL Updates

The meeting is open to the public. Written comments are invited and may be mailed to: William P. Lisowsky, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211. Written comments must be received at Land Between The Lakes by February 1, 2007, in order for copies to be provided to the members at the meeting. Board members will review written comments received, and at their request, oral clarification may be requested at a future meeting. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on February 8, 2007, 9 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., CST. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Land Between The Lakes Administrative Building, Golden Pond, Kentucky, and will be open to the public. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon Byers, Advisory Board Liaison, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211, 270-924-2002. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

None. 

Dated: January 16, 2007. 

William P. Lisowsky, 

Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes.

 [FR Doc. E7-776 Filed 1-19-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         446,247
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  329,024
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     88,131
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,178,242
<PP&E>                                       4,346,210
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,766,057
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,179,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,912,440
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,494
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,179,369
<SALES>                                      1,135,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,557,801
<CGS>                                          404,694
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  404,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,527,707
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,544
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (374,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (374,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (374,600)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
No. 55462.

#### Eric G. Mantius and Smart Lingerie Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 166782-K and 108528-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J..

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 41961.

#### Protests 360333-G, etc., of Saks & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of cocktail sets, whisky barrels and buckets, cocktail shakers, flaeons, whisky barrels, boxes, atomizers, calendars, cups, and droppers chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained. *United States*v. *Friedlaender (21*C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445), *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816), *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373), and Abstract 39456 cited.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unico American
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Erwin Cheldin,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/  Erwin Cheldin
                    ------------------
           Name:    Erwin Cheldin
           Title:   Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
           Date:    August 11, 2005




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Unico American Corporation, and
will be retained by Unico American Corporation, and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1201/2006

of 8 August 2006         

fixing the weighting coefficients to be used in calculating the Community market price for pig carcases for the 2006/07 marketing year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat (1), and in particular Article 4(6) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The weighting coefficients referred to in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 shall be as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

Regulation (EC) No 1358/2005 is hereby repealed.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 July 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 8 August 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

(2)OJ L 149, 21.6.1993, p. 1. Directive last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).

(3)OJ L 214, 19.8.2005, p. 9.

----

ANNEX

Weighting coefficients to be used in calculating the Community market price for pig carcasses for the 2006/07 marketing year

Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75

----
# C_2015398EN.01001501.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-461/15)

(2015/C 398/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Which information belongs to the relevant information within the meaning of Article 24(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU? (1) Is the restriction to be understood qualitatively or quantitatively; is, in particular, information about any planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of an installation which does not directly result in the repeal or adaptation of the allocation decision pursuant to Articles 19 to 21 of Decision 2011/278/EU and does not trigger any obligation to submit under Article 24(2) of Decision 2011/278/EU also included? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Which information belongs to the relevant information within the meaning of Article 24(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU? (1) Is the restriction to be understood qualitatively or quantitatively; is, in particular, information about any planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of an installation which does not directly result in the repeal or adaptation of the allocation decision pursuant to Articles 19 to 21 of Decision 2011/278/EU and does not trigger any obligation to submit under Article 24(2) of Decision 2011/278/EU also included?

1

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 24(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU to be interpreted as prohibiting the Member State from requiring the operator to provide information about any planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of the installation which does not result in the repeal or adaptation of the allocation decision pursuant to Articles 19 to 21 of Decision 2011/278/EU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 24(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU to be interpreted as prohibiting the Member State from requiring the operator to provide information about any planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of the installation which does not result in the repeal or adaptation of the allocation decision pursuant to Articles 19 to 21 of Decision 2011/278/EU?

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772) (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

1

---
OMB Control No. 2060 - 0336 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT, 40 CFR PART 71 **FORM EMISS -**  **EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS**

INSTRUCTIONS: Use this form to calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicabil ity purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each

emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form **GIS** . If form **FEE** does not need to be submitted with the application, do not calculate actual emis sions.

A. Emissions Unit ID Unit 2 (1 of 2)

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions Instructions: First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts. Second, list a ny other regulated pollutant (for fee

calculation) emitted at the unit that have not already been listed. Each HAP added to the list in this step may be simply li sted as "HAP". Next, calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee p urposes for each listed air pollutant. Do not calculate PTE for air pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives, including those that do not count towards applicability, when calculating actual emissions. At a minimum, round to the nearest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values. Attach examples of calculations that illustrates the methodology used. Air Pollutants (including regulated air pollutants and pollutants for which the source is major) Emission Rates CAS No. Actual Annual Emissions (tons/yr) Potential to Emit

Hourly (lb/hr) Annual

(tons/yr) PM/PM10/PM2.5 0.5 775 2.5 3 HCl/CL2 0.9340 4.09 NOx NA 4.0 CO 2.31 6.6 SO2 NA 7.7 VOM 8.0 0.90 Hg 0.0026 0.00114 7439 - 97 - 6 As 0.0018 0.0081 7440 - 38 - 2 Be 0.0018 0.0081 7440 - 41 - 7 Cd 0.0046 0.0202 7440 - 43 - 9 Cr 0.0018 0.0081 7440 - 47 - 3 Sb 0.0000342 0.000015 7440 - 31 - 5
----

|   | **EXHIBIT                31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY                ACT** |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                          |                                                                      |                                           |
|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                                          | **UNITED                  MORTGAGE TRUST**                                |
|                                     |                                                                 |                                      |
| Date: November                  14, 2007 | By                                                              | /s/ Christine                  A. Griffin |
|                                          | *President                  and Chief Executive                  Officer* |

----
#### Levant *versus*Rogers.

Rarol testimony is inadmissible to prove the allegation of a plea in abatement, that after an appeal had been taken, the writ had been altered, without leave of court.

Debt, brought before a justice of the peace.

In the District Court, the defendant pleaded in abatement, that since the appeal was taken, the plaintiff, without leave of court and without motion therefor, had inserted in the writ the words, *“now commorant of Levant in said*county.” The plaintiff’s replication traversed the allegation of the plea, and tendered an issue to the country. The defendant offered to prove, by parol, the allegation of the plea. The District Judge, Hathaway, rejected the evidence. The verdict was for plaintiff, and the defendant excepted.

Curia.

The parol proof was properly rejected. Copies, authenticated by the justices, were the only admissible evidence. Such copies were introduced by the plaintiff. They were conclusive. *Exceptions overruled.*
14910-lJ-PI

SUI\1M.ARY: We propose to adopt a nev: airworthiness directive (AD) for the produc



# r • ~" (,-11-0 

# j%"":f -'""'" 

### C.C~ 

# ~b(-g(/o 

# ~":'-l4-



# . .. • • • • • • • As per procedure, the main pumps are then sv.'itched off. increasing the level ofunavailable fuel. This, incombination •••• ith very low fuel quantities or another independent trapped fuel failure scenarios. can lead to fuel sta.ryation on the affected engine{k). .•..•..•. An A33Dexperienced an uncommanded engine #1 in night spool down. which occurred while applying fuel gra~ity feedprocedure, inresponse to 10:""pressure indications ITomall fuel bolost pumps, in both left and right wmgs. The investigations revealed thatlhe wing tank pressure switches PrN (part number) HTE69000-1 h3dfrozen due towater accumulated ;/1 their external par1. causing spurious low pressure indications. condition as: listed above. This proposed ADresults from mandatory continuing airv.'orthiness infoon"ion (MeAl) ong;nated by an av'ation 1UlhOrity ofanolh" eounlry 10identify and correct an unsafe condition on ana"iation product. The MeAl describes the unsa ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM). Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A33l200 and A330-3QOSeries Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. RIN 2120-AA64 Federal Aviation Administration IDocket No. FAA-201 o-u*"'*; Directorate IdeDtifier201 O-NJ\:]·) OZ-AD} DEPARTj\JfENT OF TRANSPORT AnON 14 eFR Part 39

FAA Form 1360-14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FILE copy
#### Cole *versus*Bruce & *al.*

Exceptions to the rulings of the Judge in the progress of a trial are waived by a motion, made and persisted in, to have the verdict set aside.

Debt upon a poor debtor’s relief bond.

The plaintiff requested certain instructions. They were not given.

The verdict was for the defendants. The plaintiff then moved to have the verdict set aside. This motion was overruled, and the plaintiff filed exceptions.

*Ruggles,*for the plaintiff.

S. *E. Smith,*for defendants.

Shepley, C. J.

The case states that the suit was commenced on December 10, 1838. It does not appear by what means it could have been kept in the District Court for so long a time. Nor does it appear at what term of that court the action was 'tried, and the bill of exceptions allowed. The proceedings must have taken place since the Revised Statutes were in force, for the exceptions are allowed by the present Judge of the Middle District.

It is stated in the bill of exceptions, that *“*after the verdict was rendered the plaintiff’s counsel moved, that the verdict be set aside and a new trial granted, because the verdict was against evidence and against law. But the Judge declined to set the verdict aside, deciding, that the same was not against law or evidence.”

In the case of *State*v. *Call,*14 Maine, 421, it was decided, that a party by making and persisting in a motion to have a verdict set aside, thereby waived his right to except to any ruling of the Judge during the trial.

*513The rights of parties are not greater under the provisions of the. Revised Statutes.

It is provided, by chap. 97, sect. 18, that after exceptions are allowed “ all further proceedings in said court shall be stayed, excepting, that any trial shall proceed, until a verdict is rendered.”

If the exceptions were to be regarded as legally existing and not waived, the Judge could not legally entertain and act upon the motion.

By mailing and persisting in such a motion, the plaintiff virtually requested the Judge to disregard or reject the exceptions, for the motion could not be granted without annihilating them.

The exceptions to all instructions and rulings during the • progress of the trial were therefore waived by making the motion, and proceeding to a decision upon it.

Exceptions will not lie to a decision of the Judge, refusing to grant a new trial; that being a matter submitted by statute to his judicial discretion. *Moulton*v. *Jose,*25 Maine, 76.

This case has therefore been irregularly brought into this court, and it is *Dismissed.*
EXHIBIT 10.15a


                          FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND
                          RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This FIRST AMENDMENT,  made as of the 1st day of February, 1998, to the
Amended and Restated  Employment  Agreement,  made as of the 1st day of January,
1988,  and  amended as of July 23,  1990,  June 1, 1995 and March 1, 1997,  (the
"Agreement") between THE UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY, a Connecticut  corporation
(the "Company") and James F. Crowe, an individual (the "Executive"),

                                WITNESSETH THAT:

     (1) The Company and the  Executive  hereby agree to amend the  Agreement as
set forth in sections (2) and (3) below:

     (2) By deleting the final sentence of Section (4)(b) in its entirety.

     (3) By inserting,  following  the second  sentence of Section  (4)(f),  the
following  sentence:  "For purposes of this  Agreement,  Total  Compensation  is
defined as the sum of the Executive's Base Salary and any amount paid or payable
to  the  Executive   pursuant  to  the  Company's  annual  Executive   Incentive
Compensation Program."

     (4) All the terms and  conditions of the  Agreement,  as amended hereby are
and shall remain in full force and effect.

     (5) This First  Amendment to the  Agreement  may be executed in one or more
counterparts,  each of  which  shall  be  deemed  an  original  but all of which
together will constitute one and the same instrument.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of
the day and year first above written.

THE UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY

                                                   ATTEST:

By        /s/ Richard J. Grossi
  ----------------------------------
         Its Chairman of the
         Board of Directors and
         Chief Executive Officer
                                                       /s/ Kurt Mohlman
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                         Treasurer and
          /s/ James F. Crowe                             Secretary
  ----------------------------------
           James F. Crowe
No. 54873.

#### Attman-Weiss et al. *v.*United States,

protests 153111-K, etc. (New York).

*318Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currencies involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currencies of the invoices covered by certain enumerated entries should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.