alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2005342EN.01001901.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 342/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/19

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2149/2005

of 23 December 2005

fixing the reduction coefficients to be applied to applications for import licences for bananas originating in the ACP countries for the months of January and February 2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 on the tariff rates for bananas (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 of 9 December 2005 on imports during January and February 2006 of bananas originating in ACP countries under the tariff quota opened by Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 on the tariff rates for bananas (2), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The applications for import licences submitted in the Member States under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 and sent to the Commission in accordance with Article 6 of that Regulation exceed the available quantities fixed in Article 2 thereof, i.e. 135 000 tonnes and 25 000 tonnes for the operators referred to in Titles II and III respectively. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The applications for import licences submitted in the Member States under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 and sent to the Commission in accordance with Article 6 of that Regulation exceed the available quantities fixed in Article 2 thereof, i.e. 135 000 tonnes and 25 000 tonnes for the operators referred to in Titles II and III respectively.

| (2) | The reduction coefficients to be applied to each application should therefore be fixed, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The reduction coefficients to be applied to each application should therefore be fixed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   A reduction coefficient of 22,039 % shall be applied to each import licence application submitted by the operators referred to in Title II of Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 under the tariff subquota of 135 000 tonnes.

2.   A reduction coefficient of 1,294 % shall be applied to each import licence application submitted by the operators referred to in Title III of Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 under the tariff subquota of 25 000 tonnes.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 23 December 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 316, 2.12.2005, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 324, 10.12.2005, p. 5.

2

---
In Reply Refer To: 

HSA-10/B147A 

400 Seventh St., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 June 16, 2006 

 Mr. Bill Neusch, President 

 Gibraltar 

 320 Southland Road 

 Burnet, Texas 78611 

Dear Mr. Neusch: 

In your June 7th letter to Mr. Richard Powers of my staff, you requested formal Federal 

Highway Administration acceptance of a design concept by which your high-tension test level 

3 (TL-3) and TL-4 Gibraltar cable rail could be transitioned and connected to a strong-post 

W-beam guardrail. 

Your transition design is intended for use in conjunction with a W-beam installation that has a 

standard, crashworthy terminal with a minimum 4’-0” offset from the cable. Each cable is 

threaded through a 12.75-inch x 1-inch slot in the valley of the W-beam panel and connected to 

the back of the panel with a modified, commercially-available steel bracket and cable fitting 

anchor. The first eleven Gibraltar posts are set on 6’-3” centers and all of these posts are 

behind the cables. From this point, the posts are set on alternating sides of the cables, with the 

next two posts on 10-foot centers and the remainder on the post spacing selected for the barrier 

length of need. Details for this transition design are shown in the enclosed drawings. 

Previous full-scale crash testing has shown that high-tension cable barriers result in lower 

deflections than those reported for the lesser-tensioned generic cable barrier. In earlier 

cable-to-W-beam transition testing with the lower-tensioned generic cable rail, the cable 

deflection allowed the W-beam terminals to be impacted, resulting in significant vehicle 

instability. With your high-tension design, it is less likely that the nose of the terminal will be 

impacted in a typical impact. Even so, the use of a lightweight, non-energy absorbing W-beam 

terminal is suggested to minimize vehicle instability if the terminal is hit. 

Based on the specific design details noted above, your proposed transition design is acceptable 

for use on the National Highway System at National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

Report 350 test level 3 when used in conjunction with a crashworthy terminal having a 

 
2

minimum 4-foot offset from the cables. Since this transition design has not been physically 

tested, field installations should be monitored to verify their presumed crashworthiness.

 

Sincerely yours, 

 

/original signed by/ 

John R. Baxter, P.E. 

 Director, Office of Safety Design 

 Office of Safety 

Enclosure 

 

 
A

A

A A
A

A

A A
#### Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-341.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.44


                              ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT

         Assumption  Agreement,  made as of the 1st day of April,  1998,  by and
between Starlog  Franchise  Corporation  (the "Company") and Hope Associates LLC
("Hope").

         Introduction.  Hope  Associates  is  the  largest  shareholder  of  The
Company, owning over 75% of its issued and outstanding shares. The Company has a
$2,000,000  loan  outstanding  (the "Loan") with the BSB Bank & Trust Company in
Binghamton,  New York (the "Bank"). Hope and its members are personal guarantors
of the  Loan.  The  Company  needs to raise  additional  capital  to  remain  in
business.  Unless it does so, it will not be able to repay the Loan and the Bank
will seek  recovery  from Hope and its members.  The Company will not be able to
raise any additional  capital while the Loan is on The Company's  balance sheet,
causing The Company to have a large negative net asset value. Therefor, Hope and
its members  have agree to assume the Loan and relieve The Company from the debt
of the Loan, under the following terms and conditions.

1.        Assumption/Relief  of The Company.  Hope will assume  and/or cause its
          member to assume the debt under the Loan,  and will cause The  Company
          to be relieved of such debt.

2.        Consideration. In consideration for which, The Company will: (a) issue
          Hope and/or its members, in such proportion as Hope shall instruct the
          Company,  warrants  to  purchase  a total  of  500,000  shares  of the
          Company's  common stock (after  taking into account the proposed 1 for
          10 reverse stock split) at $1.25 per share, such warrants to expire on
          November  30,  2002;  and (b) the  Company  will pay Hope  and/or  its
          members, an investment fee, while the Loan remains outstanding,  equal
          to $17,600 a per month.

         In Witness  Whereof,  the  parties  have caused  this  agreement  to be
executed effective the date first set forth above.

Starlog Franchise Group, Inc.                  Hope Associates, LLC
BY:        /s/ Jack Fitzgerald                 BY:       /s/Michael Michaelson
           ----------------------                        -----------------------
The Library of Congress             >> ResearchersHome >> Military             Legal Resources >> Operational Law             HandbooksFind in  Military Legal                     Resources Federal                     Research Division Pages Researchers                     Web Pages All Library of Congress                     Pages Operational Law                 Handbooks
The             Operational Law Handbook is a focused collection of diverse             legal and practical information, and is designed and written for             Judge Advocates practicing operational law. A �how to� guide for             Judge Advocates, the handbook provides references and describes             tactics and techniques for the practice of operational law. The             handbook is intended to help Judge Advocates recognize, analyze, and             resolve the problems they will encounter in the operational context.             The Handbook �is not intended to represent official U.S. policy             regarding the binding application of varied sources of law, though             the Handbook may reference source documents which themselves do so.�             The Handbook is updated and issued annually by the International and             Operational Law Department, The Judge             Advocate General�s Legal Center and School (TJAGLCS) . (Library of Congress Call Number KF7250.A15             O64; OCLC Number 370811194.) The current edition supersedes all             previous editions. 

Adobe Acrobat Reader 6.0 or higher is required to read these             documents. If you do not have this software on your PC, go to http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html             to download a free copy of the reader.
OCLC NumberOperational                   Law Handbook, 2011747855158Operational                   Law Handbook, 2010665067856Operational                   Law Handbook, 2009439881206Operational                   Law Handbook, 2008439902385Operational                   Law Handbook, 2007370811194Top             of PageHome >> Military             Legal Resources >> Operational Law             HandbooksFind in  Military Legal                     Resources Federal                     Research Division Pages Researchers                     Web Pages All Library of Congress                     Pages The Library of Congress >> Researchers  August                   29, 2011 Legal | External Link                   DisclaimerContact                   Us
#### MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. The KEYES COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-738.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                             CONSENT OF HOBE & LUCAS

                                                       March 19, 2004

Mr. Russell Ciphers Sr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
American Stone Industries, Inc.
230 W. Main Street
South Amherst, OH  44001

Re: Consent to Incorporation of Independent Auditor's Report

Dear Mr. Ciphers:

       This firm was the independent auditor for American Stone Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003. In this context, we
understand that the Company is filing a Form 10-KSB with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and has filed a Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (registration number 333-74899).

       Pursuant to Item 601(b)(23) of Regulation S-B, this letter will serve as
our consent for the Company to file with the Form 10-KSB and incorporate by
reference in the Form S-8 our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm dated February 16, 2004 for fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 and to the
reference to Hobe & Lucas, Certified Public Accounts, Inc., therein.

                                             /s/   Hobe & Lucas
                                             Certified Public Accountants, Inc.

                                             Hobe & Lucas
                                             Certified Public Accountants, Inc.

                                  Exhibit 23.1
                                   Page 1 of 1
255 La. 482

#### MICHIGAN WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY v. Larry H. MILLER et al.

No. 50373.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 27, 1970.

In re: Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 229 So.2d 182.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in its judgment.
Public Hearing to Receive Comments on a Proposed Revision to a Shelby County 

Portion of the Tennessee State Implementation Plan 

Thursday, March 6, 2014 6:00PM 

Baker Community Center, Meeting Room 2 

7942 Church Street, Millington, TN 38053 

Sign In Sheet 

Sta~ a-J 

i/J 

;-v 

Mission 

To promote, protect and improve the health and environment of all Shelby County residents. 

814 Jefferson AvenuetMemphis, Tennessee 38105 

(90 I) 222-9000
#### In the matter of the use by the trial courts of the STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CIVIL CASES).

No. 44800.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 21, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the report of the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions, the following recommended revisions are hereby approved by the Court and the Committee and The Florida Bar are hereby authorized to publish and distribute such revisions:

> 1.2 To revise the committee’s recommendation concerning curative charges appropriate during the trial.

> 2.4 To revise the committees’ recommendation concerning the use of the charge on multiple claims, numerous parties or consolidated claims.

> 3.2e To delete a charge on the guest statute.

> 3.2, page’ 8 To delete a reference to “gross negligence” as previously used in application of the guest statute.

> 3.5 To recommend an integrated charge on claim and counterclaim in comparative negligence cases (pp. 1, la and lb) and to substitute a new title for conventional charges on claim or counterclaim (p. lc).

> 3.8 To recommend appropriate charges in respect to comparative negligence.

> 5.2 To delete a charge on last clear chance.

> 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 To revise charges on damages in personal injury and property damage cases consistently with the doctrine of comparative negligence and to recommend appropriate instructions in wrongful death cases.

> 6.7, 618 To delete obsolete charges.

> 6.9 To revise the charge on mortality tables.

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions is hereby continued for a further period for the purpose of reviewing errors and inaccuracies and recommending to the Court revisions that experience may prove beneficial.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEICLE, JJ„ concur.
|   | (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:  March 29, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Frank B. Manning                                                         |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   | Name: Frank B. Manning                                                       |   |
|                            |   | Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                            |   | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)                |   |
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2006163EN.01001901.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 15.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 163/19 |

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 83/2005 of 18 January 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate originating inter alia in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 19 of 21 January 2005](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2005_019_R_TOC)
)

On page 7, Article 1(2), in the table, second column under ‘Company’, fourth and seventeenth lines:

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (a) | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | for | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘India | Futura Polymers Ltd’, | | | read | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘India | Futura Polyesters Ltd’; | | |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (b) | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | for | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘Taiwan | Shingkong Synthetic Fibers Corp.’, | | | read | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘Taiwan | Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corp.’. | | |

---
**Exhibit 31.A**
**Certification**
I, Douglas L. Foshee, certify that:
1. I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of El Paso CGP Company;
2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this Report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisReport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: June 20, 2005                 /s/ Douglas L. Foshee   Douglas L. Foshee    President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
32.2





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
WRASP 32, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Anthony C. Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:





(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/ Anthony C.
  PintsopoulosAnthony
      C. PintsopoulosPrincipal
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      2, 2010
#### Charles L. NORRIS and Phyllis A. Norris, his wife, Appellants, v. Wayne J. VERVILLE et al., Appellees.

Nos. 72-1074, 72-1132.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 21, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 30, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders

Avicenna Global Corp. 

(formerly: Rodon, Inc.)

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Avicenna Global Corp. formerly Rodon, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) as of November 30, 2010 and 2009, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit, and cash flows for the years ended November 30, 2010 and 2009 and from inception (January 29, 2009) to November 30, 2010. Avicenna Global Corp. management is responsible for these financial statements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the company’s internal control over the financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Avicenna Global Corp. (A Development Stage Company) as of November 30, 2010 and 2009, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the period ended November 30, 2010 and 2009 and from inception (January 29, 2009) to November 30, 2010 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 2. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC

/s/ De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC

Henderson, Nevada

March 07, 2011