alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 100 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29144-29145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9984]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF07-88-000]


Food Lion 575--Elizabeth City, NC; Notice of Filing of Notice of 
Self-Certification of Qualifying Status of a Cogeneration Facility

May 18, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 7, 2007, Food Lion LLC, 2110 Executive 
Drive, Salisbury, NC 28145 (Headquarters), filed with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission a notice of self-certification of a 
facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility pursuant to 18 CFR 
292.207(a) of the Commission's regulations.
    This qualifying cogeneration facility consists of a 400 kW packaged 
diesel engine generator set operating on <greek-i>2 fuel oil. The 
package is set on a concrete pad. The unit is self-contained, including 
all necessary switchgear and controls. The electricity is generated at 
208 V, 3 phase, 60 Hz. The facility is located at 1313 N. Road St., 
Elizabeth City, NC 27909.
    This qualifying facility interconnects with the City of Elizabeth 
City's electric distribution system. The facility will provide standby 
power and occasionally supplementary power to Food Lion.
    A notice of self-certification does not institute a proceeding 
regarding qualifying facility status; a notice of self-certification 
provides notice that the entity making filing has determined the 
Facility meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any 
person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so 
by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii).
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#63252631202c0d0f0a0d06301613130c111723050611004d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ec8cbdccdc1e0e2e7e0ebddfbfefee1fcfacee8ebfceda0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>, or call

[[Page 29145]]

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9984 Filed 5-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 96-7597.

#### Blair v. Calderon, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES, petitioner, v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, et al.

No. 98-130.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 13, 1998.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2013207EN.01001103.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2013 — Teresa Mascellani v Ministero della Giustizia

(Case C-221/13)

2013/C 207/21

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Teresa Mascellani

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In so far as it provides that ‘[t]he refusal by a worker to be transferred from full-time to part-time work or vice-versa should not in itself constitute a valid reason for termination of employment, without prejudice to the possibility, under national laws, collective agreements and practice, of termination for other reasons such as may arise from the operational requirements of the establishment concerned’, must Clause 5.2 of the Agreement implemented by Directive 97/81/EC (1) be construed as meaning that provision may not be made in the legislation of Member States for employers to be able to convert a part-time employment relationship into a full-time relationship even where the employee does not consent? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In so far as it provides that ‘[t]he refusal by a worker to be transferred from full-time to part-time work or vice-versa should not in itself constitute a valid reason for termination of employment, without prejudice to the possibility, under national laws, collective agreements and practice, of termination for other reasons such as may arise from the operational requirements of the establishment concerned’, must Clause 5.2 of the Agreement implemented by Directive 97/81/EC (1) be construed as meaning that provision may not be made in the legislation of Member States for employers to be able to convert a part-time employment relationship into a full-time relationship even where the employee does not consent?

1

| 2. | Does Directive 97/81/EC preclude a provision of national law (such as Article 16 of Italian Law No 183 of 4 November 2010) under which employers may convert a part-time employment relationship into a full-time employment relationship even where the employee does not consent? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Directive 97/81/EC preclude a provision of national law (such as Article 16 of Italian Law No 183 of 4 November 2010) under which employers may convert a part-time employment relationship into a full-time employment relationship even where the employee does not consent?

---

(1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

1

---
JACKIE NICHOLAS,

Appellant,

v.

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, ET 

AL.,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-30

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 13, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County.

Andrew J. Decker, III, Judge.

Jackie Nicholas, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Antony D. Constantini, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, THOMAS, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2013178EN.01000602.xml

| 22.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 April 2013 — K Oy

(Case C-219/13)

2013/C 178/12

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K Oy

Applicant:

Other parties: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö, Valtiovarainministeriö

Other parties:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of and point 6 of Annex III (as that point appears in Council Directive 2009/47/EC) (1) to Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) on the common system of value added tax, when the principle of tax neutrality is taken into account, preclude national legislation under which a reduced rate of value added tax is applied to printed books, but the standard rate of tax is applied to books on other physical means of support such as a CD, CD-ROM or memory stick?

1

2

As regards the answer given to the question above, is it of any significance

| — | whether a book is intended to be read or to be listened to (an audiobook), |
| --- | --- |

—

whether a book is intended to be read or to be listened to (an audiobook),

| — | whether there exists a printed book with the same content as a book or audiobook on a CD, CD-ROM, memory stick or other equivalent physical means of support, |
| --- | --- |

—

whether there exists a printed book with the same content as a book or audiobook on a CD, CD-ROM, memory stick or other equivalent physical means of support,

| — | that a book on a physical means of support other than paper can exploit technical features provided by that means of support, such as search functions? |
| --- | --- |

—

that a book on a physical means of support other than paper can exploit technical features provided by that means of support, such as search functions?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards reduced rates of value added tax (OJ 2009 L 116, p. 18).

1

(2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       2,290,366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,260,241
<ALLOWANCES>                                   140,837
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,601,339
<PP&E>                                       2,953,939
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,834,661
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,659,110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,824,931
<BONDS>                                      2,726,715
<COMMON>                                        66,116
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     47,188
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,951,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,659,110
<SALES>                                      1,101,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,886,336
<CGS>                                          880,639
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,047,634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             378,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (512,623)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (512,623)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (512,623)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2019 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2019

To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
 prescribe regulations to reduce helicopter noise pollution in certain 
               residential areas, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 16, 2011

 Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
 prescribe regulations to reduce helicopter noise pollution in certain 
               residential areas, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Los Angeles Residential Helicopter 
Noise Relief Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS TO REDUCE HELICOPTER NOISE POLLUTION IN CERTAIN 
              RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

    (a) Regulations Required.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration shall prescribe regulations for helicopter operations in 
Los Angeles County, California, that include requirements relating to 
the flight paths and altitudes associated with such operations to 
reduce helicopter noise pollution in residential areas, increase 
safety, and minimize commercial aircraft delays.
    (b) Exemptions.--In prescribing regulations under subsection (a), 
the Administrator shall exempt helicopter operations related to 
emergency, law enforcement, or military activities from the 
requirements described in that subsection.
    (c) Consultations.--In prescribing regulations under subsection 
(a), the Administrator shall make reasonable efforts to consult with 
local communities and local helicopter operators in order to develop 
regulations that meet the needs of local communities, helicopter 
operators, and the Federal Aviation Administration.
                                 <all>
```
No. 96-299.

#### Trans World Airlines, Inc., et al. *v.*Sinicropi et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In   connection   with  the   accompanying   Annual  Report  of  Summit
Environmental  Corporation,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2004 (the  "Report"),  I, Keith Parker,  Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  April 20, 2005

                                            /s/ Keith Parker
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Keith Parker
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


         The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350)  and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.

                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
(Reap. Dec. 9946)

#### D. Lisner & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 39413, etc.

(Decided March 15, 1961)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

*William S. Orrich, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OlcveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the schedule hereto annexed and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the issues in *Paramount Import Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697, and that the record in said case may *be*incorporated herein.

> *634IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in the cases listed in the schedule hereto annexed less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the Appraiser in similar caees [sic] is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Czechoslovakia in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, packed ready for delivery and that the foreign values of such or similar merchandise were no higher.

In tbe incorporated case, it was held that the amount paid a foreign commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase of merchandise in the foreign' market and which amount did not inure to the benefit of the seller was a buying commission, and, therefore, was not a part of the dutiable value of the merchandise.

On the agreed facts and following my cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised value, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### R. H. Macy & Co., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6906.

Entry No. 705006/2, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, June 11, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 23, 1941, etc.

(Decided February 20, 1947)

*John R. Rafter*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been stipulated between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to silverware, cutlery, table utensils, and other articles are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Carp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the value of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importers on entries because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.;
#### SHAW v. RICHARDS.

June 9, 1837.

*Rule to show cause why attachment should not he set aside.*

A *scire fa. post ann. et di. qua. ex. non*is not necessary under the 1st and 2d sections of the act of 16th June, 1836, relating- do executions, where an execution has been once regularly issued.

The provisions of the same act relating to the issuing of attachments of execution do not extend to judgments entered before the passage of the act.

THIS action was brought to March term, 1834, and there was judgment for the plaintiff at the same term. *Fieri facias*issued to June term, 1834, returned *nulla bona.*An attachment of execution against money deposited in bank, issued to June term, 1837. Defendant obtained this rule to show cause why the attachment should not be set aside.

*Chew,*for the rule, said, that the act of 16th June, Í836, sections 1 and 2, *(Stroud’s Purd. tit. Execution,)*required a revival by *104
      *scire facias. 2.*That *the*same act providing for attachments of execution, (sections 32 to 38,) did not apply to suits brought before the passage of the act. He cited *2 Serg.*&*R.*156.

*I. Norris,*contra.

Per Curiam.—

The first point of defendant’s counsel is not sustainable. In *Dodge*v. *Casey,*(1 Miles 13,) it was held that *a fieri facias*having issued on a judgment, a *scire facias*was not necessary to enable the plaintiff to have another execution. And the act of June 16, 1836, prescribes no new rule; its provisions for a *sci.fa. qua ex,*non, relates entirely to cases where no execution has ever been issued. On the second point, however, we think the law is with the defendant. The provisions of the act for this process of attachment of execution are prospective, and do not relate to judgments obtained before the passage of the law. This judgment is of that kind, and the attachment must therefore be quashed.

Rule absolute.
Exhibit 32.2



AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES



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 Amtech Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Robert T. Hass, Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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.



|      |  |                                                   
|----- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|By    |  | /s/ Robert T. Hass                                
|      |  | Robert T. Hass                                    
|      |  | Vice President Finance and Chief Financial
Officer
|      | 
|Date: |  | October 18, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         428,478
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  133,192
<ALLOWANCES>                                    44,000
<INVENTORY>                                    795,857
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,317,385
<PP&E>                                         104,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,042
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,007,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           85,742
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,094
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,864,295
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,007,742
<SALES>                                         80,184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,570
<CGS>                                           39,353
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,353
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,232,867
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,175,650)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,175,650)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,175,650)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)


</TABLE>