alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 51996IP0138 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 51996IP0138

**Resolution on the cormorant problem in European fisheries **

*
Official Journal C 065 , 04/03/1996 P. 0158 *

B4-0138/96

Resolution on the cormorant problem in European fisheries

The European Parliament,

A. whereas there has been a twentyfold increase in cormorant numbers in recent years,

B. whereas, in particular, there has been a very significant increase in cormorants in Denmark and Northern Germany, inland areas such as the Rhone and Po valleys and in areas where, in the past, they were rarely seen, such as Bavaria and Austria,

C. whereas predation by cormorants can have a devastating effect on inland and coastal fisheries,

D. whereas the interests of fishermen are best served by a rational and effective programme of management which seeks to maintain fish stocks at abundant levels, capable of supporting fisheries on a sustainable basis,

E. whereas the use of derogations under Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.)) does not answer the need to manage cormorant species at Europe-wide level,

F. whereas some Member States have already called for international action in the context of the Bonn Convention,

The European Parliament,

1. Considers it appropriate to take special temporary measures, by means of scientific projects approved by the Commission, aimed at:

(a) reestablishing environmental balance in the areas where an abnormal increase in the number of cormorants is ascertained,

(b) preventive action to restrict the reproduction of cormorants,

(c) the analysis and development of other non-violent ways of reducing the environmental impact of excessive numbers of cormorants,

(d) and, above all, catching cormorants in areas where their presence is proven to be a nuisance and, in view of studies carried out by scientific authorities, the temporary exclusion of cormorants (Phalacrocorax sinensis) from Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC;

2. Calls on the Council to take effective action to restore depleted fish stocks and ensure that the common fisheries policy maintains fish at levels which can support both human fisheries and natural predators;

3. Urges the Commission and the Council to investigate non-lethal alternatives which will constrain the impact of cormorants (as required in Article 9(1) of the Directive);

4. Calls upon the Commission to develop a programme for the conservation of wetlands in the European Union;

5. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 193 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 193

   To increase the penalties for violations by television and radio 
   broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, 
                    indecent, and profane language.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2005

 Mr. Brownback (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Allen, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
 DeMint, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Hagel, Mr. McCain, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Dole, 
 Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Thune, Mr. Lott, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Martinez, Mr. 
  Grassley, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. 
    Thomas) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To increase the penalties for violations by television and radio 
   broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, 
                    indecent, and profane language.

    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 ``Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PENALTIES FOR OBSCENE, INDECENT, AND PROFANE 
              BROADCASTS.

    Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
503(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
        subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
        subparagraph:
    ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the violator is--
            ``(i)(I) a broadcast station licensee or permittee; or
            ``(II) an applicant for any broadcast license, permit, 
        certificate, or other instrument or authorization issued by the 
        Commission; and
            ``(ii) determined by the Commission under paragraph (1) to 
        have broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane language, the 
        amount of any forfeiture penalty determined under this 
        subsection shall not exceed $325,000 for each violation or each 
        day of a continuing violation, except that the amount assessed 
        for any continuing violation shall not exceed a total of 
        $3,000,000 for any single act or failure to act.''; and
            (3) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by paragraph (1), 
        by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting 
        ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)''.
                                 <all>
```
### Petroleum geology of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, Elk Hills, Kern County, California, with a section on channel turbidite sandstones in the Elk Hills Shale Member of the Monterey Shale

By: John Charles MaherR.D. CarterRobert Joseph LantzK. T. Biddle

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp912

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 9**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 10**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 11**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 12**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 13**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 14**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 15**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 16**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 17**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 18**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 19**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 20**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 21**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 22**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 23**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 24**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 25**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# Army wins by one stroke in golf tourney versus Marines

/ Published Sept. 20, 2018
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
                Army vs USMC Golf Tourney                            Army came out on top at the 12th annual Army vs Marine Corps Golf Tournament Sept. 14 at the Defense Supply Center Columbus. Army edged out USMC by one stroke, winning 268-269, and taking the top spot for the third year in a row. Fourteen teams teed off in the friendly competition that set Army and Marine Corps active duty, retirees and veterans against each other to claim bragging rights as the installation’s top service in golf. Leading up to the 2018 tournament, both military branches were tied – each had won five previous contests and finished in a tie once. Participants included members of the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime as well as former Whitehall mayor, John Wolfe, who served in the Marine Corps early in his career.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Charles MorrisVIRIN: 180914-D-LC637-0148Army came out on top at the 12th annual Army vs Marine Corps Golf Tournament Sept. 14 at the Defense Supply Center Columbus. 

Army edged out USMC by one stroke, winning 268-269, and taking the top spot for the third year in a row. Fourteen teams teed off in the friendly competition that set Army and Marine Corps active duty, retirees and veterans against each other to claim bragging rights as the installation’s top service in golf. 

Leading up to the 2018 tournament, both military branches were tied – each had won five previous contests and finished in a tie once. 

Participants included members of the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime as well as former Whitehall mayor, John Wolfe, who served in the Marine Corps early in his career.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

VIAE -Mail April 5 , 2016 David Ouimette, Ph.D. U.S
. Regulatory Leader Dow AgroSciences LLC 9330 Zionsville Rd Indianapolis , Indiana 46268-1054 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

Subject : Fluroxypyr Generic Data Call-In (GDCI-128968-1498) : Study Titling Error Dear Mr. Ouimette: On March 1, 2016, the EPA issued a data call-in (DCI) for fluroxypyr under registration review (GDCI-128968-1498) that included the following study:

Guideline Number 835.6100 ation The DCI erroneously indicated that the full Terrestrial Field Dissipation study is requested. However, only a portion of this study is needed, which the footnote (8) has specified. The portion ofthe study needed is "Environmental Chemistry Analytical Method and Associated Independent Laboratory Validation for Soil and Water." The correct guideline number for this portion ofthe study is 850.6100. The requirements for this guideline are located in the 40 CFR Part 48
. These methods and validations are needed for both fluroxypyr-MHE and fluroxypyr acid
. The Fluroxypyr DCI requires the submission ofGLN 850.6100 data within 24 months of Dow ' s receipt ofthe DCI. If you have any questions regarding these data requirements , please do not hesitate to contact Caitlin Newcamp ofmy staff at newcamp.caitlin@epa.gov or (703) 347-0325. 

# lrP
Neil Anderson Chief , Risk Management Implementation Branch I Pesticide Re-evaluation Division Office of Pesticide Programs
March 12, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

OSBORN ERNIE WILSON, APPELLANT

NO. 14-11-00860-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 32


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In  connection  with the Quarterly Report of International Commercial Television
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on  Form  10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Kelvin  Claney,  President  and  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, 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.

   /s/  Kelvin  Claney
------------------------------
Kelvin  Claney,  President  &  Chief  Executive  Officer
August  13,  2003





In  connection with the Quarterly Report of International Commercial Television,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on  Form  10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Patrick  Lavin, Chief Financial 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,  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.

     /s/  Patrick  Lavin
---------------------------
Patrick  Lavin,  Chief  Financial  Officer
August  13,  2003


<PAGE>
#### Thomas Letson PLANT, Jr., Appellant, v. Angelica S. PLANT, Appellee.

No. 77-2405.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 18, 1978.

*487Goodhart & Rosner and James F. Dough-erty, II, Miami, for appellant.

Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and Thomas E. Scott, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., PEARSON, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This interlocutory appeal is from the trial court’s order denying the husband’s motion to enforce a tendered settlement agreement in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The court’s decision to hear the issues relative to the property involved will not be disturbed upon interlocutory appeal where the trial judge heard testimony on issues affecting the validity and the fairness of the agreement. See *Herzog v. Herzog,*346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977).

Affirmed.
Honeywell 

101 Constitution Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

April 14, 2011 

Docket Operations 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Honeywell is withdrawing its petition filed on 16 Dec 2010 for an 8 month exemption to 

the requirements of section 21.603 of 14 CFR for certain Traffic alert and Collision 

Avoidance Systems (TCAS) computers. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Chris Benich 

Vice President, Aerospace Regulatory Affairs
#### INDICO CORPORATION, Mayer Morganroth & Martin Kopitz, jointly and severally, Appellants, v. GREENMAN ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee.

No. 77-212.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 9, 1978.

Mayer Morganroth, Southfield, Mich., for appellants.

T. Don Tenbrook and James Carry Jacobson of Rosen & Jacobson, Hollywood, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Chief Judge.

Appellant raises several issues which, if supported by the record, indicate that a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred in the trial of this case. However, appellee denies all of the appellant’s contentions and the record is inadequate to reach the merits of the case because there is no transcript of the trial proceedings and no effort was made to reconstruct them.

Briefly, appellee sued Indico Corporation, a Michigan corporation, Mayer Morganroth and Martin Kopitz, residents of Michigan, seeking approximately $100,000 for breach of contract. The individual defendants were sued as guarantors. On the eve of trial Florida counsel withdrew; the trial was not continued; and Morganroth, a Michigan lawyer, attempted to try the case on behalf of the defendants.

Appellants claim the trial court refused to grant them a continuance although Florida counsel, before withdrawing, suggested to the trial court one should be granted. Appellants contend Morganroth had insufficient time to prepare the case for trial. They next complain that even though the trial commenced at 11:00 a. m., and the appellee rested at 1:00 p. m., the trial judge forced appellants, under pain of contempt, to complete their case by 2:00 p. m. Lastly, appellants maintain that they were required to proceed to trial without a court reporter, thus precluding them from obtaining a transcript of the proceedings.

The foregoing are serious contentions, which, if supported by an adequate record, would probably require reversal and remand for a new trial. However, appellee states that none of the judicial acts assigned as error took place. Thus, it is imperative that the record be reconstructed if the merits of the case are to be reached.

Accordingly, we relinquish jurisdiction of this cause to the trial court for a period of 30 days so that the trial court and counsel can reconstruct the record.1 After the record is filed in this court appellant shall have 10 days to file a supplemental brief and appellee shall have 10 days after receipt of appellant’s supplemental brief to file its supplemental brief if they be so advised.

CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur.

1

. *See The Travelers Insurance Company v. Agricultural Delivery Service,*262 So.2d 210 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1972), for suggested guidelines only. This does not indicate a concurrence with the totality of the decision.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001075954
<NAME> OSWEGO COUNTY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,473
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     15,383
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          15,654
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            15,457
<LOANS>                                         71,754
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,084
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,678
<DEPOSITS>                                     102,398
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,563
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,717
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 116,678
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,887
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  843
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,811
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,549
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,549
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,262
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       60
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   8
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,941
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    454
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         454
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       290
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.41
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,165
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,068
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       57
<RECOVERIES>                                        12
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,084
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               892
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            192


</TABLE>
#### CITY OF BOCA RATON, a municipality of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Arthur L. WALKER and Rhonda Walker, his wife, Appellees.

No. 77-1534.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 24, 1978.

Jones, Paine & Foster, Sidney A. Stubbs, Jr., and Margaret Cooper, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Brumer, Moss, Cohen & Rodgers and Burt E. Redlus, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The City of Boca Raton was sued in Dade County for the tort of false arrest. A motion to transfer the cause to Palm Beach County was made and denied. This interlocutory appeal is from that order. We reverse upon authority of *Carlile*v. *Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,*354 So.2d 362 (Fla.1977),1 wherein the Supreme Court held that absent expressed exceptions, when a tort action is brought against the state or one of its agencies, the action must be brought in the county wherein the agency maintains its principal headquarters.

The appellee concedes the existence of this rule but urges that this case should be an exception because in this instance it is alleged that the false arrest was a joint tort with the other defendants, i. e., Dade County and Food Fair Stores, Inc., and that the tort was committed in Dade County as well as in Palm Beach County. We find no room in the Supreme Court’s decision for the *441carving of such an exception and, accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to transfer the cause against the City of Boca Raton to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit.

Reversed and remanded.

1

. We note that the cited opinion was not available to the trial judge at the time of his ruling.