alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014173EN.01000101.xml

| 7.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/1

---

Communication in accordance with Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, on the information provided by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature

2014/C 173/01

Binding Tariff Information ceases to be valid from this day if it becomes incompatible with the interpretation of the customs nomenclature as a result of the following international tariff measures:

Amendments to the Harmonised System Explanatory Notes and the Compendium of Classification Opinions, approved by the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC doc. NC1937 — report of the 52nd Session of the HS Committee):

AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE DONE UNDER ARTICLE 8 PROCEDURE OF THE HS CONVENTION AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS EDITED BY THE HS COMMITTEE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION

AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE DONE UNDER ARTICLE 8 PROCEDURE OF THE HS CONVENTION AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS EDITED BY THE HS COMMITTEE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION

(52nd SESSION OF THE HSC IN SEPTEMBER 2013)

DOC. NC1937

Amendments of the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature annexed to the HS Convention

Amendments of the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature annexed to the HS Convention

| General interpretative rule 3(b) | N/9 |
| --- | --- |
| 39.09 | N/15 |
| 69.07 | N/11 |
| 74.03 | N/4 |
| 85.41 | N/3 |
| 94.03 | N/1 |

General interpretative rule 3(b)

N/9

39.09

N/15

69.07

N/11

74.03

N/4

85.41

N/3

94.03

N/1

Classification Opinions approved by the HS Committee

Classification Opinions approved by the HS Committee

| 1901.90/3 | N/6 |
| --- | --- |
| 2101.11/1 | N/7 |
| 3004.90/3 | N/10 |
| 6907.90/1 | N/5 |
| 6912.00/1 | N/8 |
| 8415.82/1-2 | N/12 |
| 8502.39/1 | N/13 |
| 8518.22/1 | N/14 |

1901.90/3

N/6

2101.11/1

N/7

3004.90/3

N/10

6907.90/1

N/5

6912.00/1

N/8

8415.82/1-2

N/12

8502.39/1

N/13

8518.22/1

N/14

Information regarding the contents of these measures can be obtained from the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission (rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, 1049 Brussel, Belgium) or can be downloaded from the internet site of this Directorate-General:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/harmonised_system/index_en.htm

---
September 21, 2010

Docket Management Facility U.S Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption No 8794A, Regulat ory Docket No. FAA-2006-26039

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations parts 11.63 and 11.81, US Airways, Inc (US Airways) petitions the Administrator to amend Exemption No 8794A to extend the expiration date of the ex emption from October 31, 2010, to October 31, 2012, or other such future date as may be found acceptable. Exemption No 8794A, as amended, grants relief from 14 CFR part 121.434 (c)(1 )(ii) so as to a llow US Airways to substitute a qualified and aut horized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in §121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

This exemption has been used by US Airways for almost four years, and by several other airlines, with no negative impact. US Airway s continues to be in compliance with the conditions of the exemption to 14 CFR pa rt 121.434 (c)(1)( ii), and believes that extending Exemption No. 8794A, as stated, w ould have no adverse effect on safety.

Therefore, we respectfully request an exte nsion of Exemption No. 8794A for two years, or other appropriate regulatory relief.

US Airways suggests that good cause exists for waiving publication of notice of this petition in the Federal Register. The grant of exemption petitioned fo r here would not set a precedent, and the exemption would in all ways, other than the effective date, be identical to the exemption now in place. Delay in acting on the petition would be detrimental to the petitioner and to the public, as well.

4000 East Sky Harbor Blvd, FC-F SS, Phoenix, AZ 85034 (480 ) 693-4660 Fax (480) 693-4936SUMMARY

US Airways, Inc. petitions for an amendment to Exemption No 8794A to extend the expiration date of same, which permits US Airways to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC ) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in §121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

Please let me know if there is any further in formation you need for your review of this petition. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Captain Lyle Hogg Vice President, Flight Operations US Airways, Inc. 4000 East Sky Harbor Boulevard

FC-FSS Phoenix, AZ 85034
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of Big Clix, Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q /A Amendment No. 1 for the period ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Patrick Yore, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  August 7, 2013  /s/ Patrick Yore Patrick Yore, President, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting officer  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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### COLLINS 20TH STREET REALTY CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-597.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 21, 1972.

*528High, Stack, Davis & Lazenby, and William A. Friedlander, Miami, for appellant.

Stuart L. Simon, County Atty., and Murray Greenberg, Asst. County Atty., for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, a taxpayer, sought the benefit of § 194.033, Fla.Stat. (1969), F.S. A., which has been subsequently repealed [Ch. 71-371, Gen.Laws of Fla.1971], and arbitrated a tax assessment and secured a reduction in the assessment as originally fixed. It thereafter instituted a proceeding on the equity side of the court, challenging the validity of the assessment. Taxing authorities moved to dismiss the proceeding upon several grounds, among which was the failure to state a cause of action, citing Ch. 682, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The trial judge dismissed the complaint; the taxpayer then sought to amend the complaint, alleging that the tax assessment was void. The trial court denied the amendment; this appeal ensued.

 The appellant has preserved several points for review, among which is that arbitration under § 194.033, Fla.Stat. (1969) F.S.A., is not governed by Ch. 682, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. With this we disagree [see: Judge Charles A. Carroll’s concurring opinion in City National Bank of Miami v. Blake, Fla.App.1972, 257 So.2d 264 (opinion filed February 1, 1972)], and hold that an arbitration by a taxpayer under § 194.-033, Fla.Stat. (1969), F.S.A., is governed by Ch. 682, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. And, without the necessary allegations of grounds under the statute, which are admittedly missing in the instant complaints, the taxpayer is not entitled to relief in the circuit court. If the assessment the taxpayer was complaining of was a “void assessment” and not merely in part a voidable assessment then he would be entitled to seek relief in the circuit court. West Virginia Hotel Corporation v. W. C. Foster Company, 101 Fla. 1147, 132 So. 843; Thursby v. Stewart, 103 Fla. 990, 138 So. 742; Hackney v. McKenny, 113 Fla. 176, 151 So. 524; Overstreet v. Ty-Tan, Inc., Fla.1950, 48 So.2d 158; St. Joe Paper Company v. Ray, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 646.

The court having held that the taxpayer’s right to relief by a general suit in equity was barred by the invoking of § 194.033, Fla.Stat. (1969), F.S.A., as regulated by Ch. 682, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the action of the trial judge should be affirmed and there is no need for the court to deal with the other points raised by the appellant.

Affirmed.
#### John LAMERS, Appellant, v. Catherine LAMERS, Appellee.

No. 72-38.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 10, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 5, 1973.

Harry G. Carratt, of Morgan, Carratt & O’Connor, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

*583Cecil T. Farrington, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

MAGER, Judge.

Upon a review and consideration of the • record, briefs and oral argument we are of the opinion that the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error except as to that portion of the final judgment awarding to the appellee exclusive title and ownership of jointly held real property.

In Ellis v. Ellis, Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 745 and Martin v. Case, Fla.App. 1970, 231 So.2d 279, this court reaffirmed the well established principle that a court cannot adjudicate the property rights of parties in a suit for separate maintenance. “Thus, the correct sequence is to first or at least contemporaneously, determine if a divorce is to be awarded and then proceed to adjudicate property rights . . . ”, Ellis v. Ellis, supra. This court’s decisions in *Ellis*and *Martin*are consistent with the holding in Smith v. Smith, Fla.1964, 160 So.2d 697. In *Smith*the Supreme Court of Florida observed that it was within the power of the chancellor in a separate maintenance suit to adjudicate “a dispute between the parties as to the ownership of *personal*property”. The Supreme Court, however, was careful to recognize that “there is a distinction between the contest over a *property settlement*and one affecting a claim to *personal property.”*Cf. Naurison v. Naurison, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 510.

It is our opinion, based upon the foregoing decisions, that the trial court erred when it undertook, in a separate maintenance action, to adjudicate the title and ownership to certain real property held jointly by the appellant and appellee. Except to this extent, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part.

WALDEN, J., concurs.

REED, C. J., dissents in part; concurs in part.

REED, Chief Judge

(dissenting in part, concurring in part).

I would affirm the final judgment in its entirety on the basis of Smith v. Smith, Fla. 1964, 160 So.2d 697; Wilson v. Wilson, 1928, 96 Fla. 358, 118 So. 215; Section 65.021, F.S.1969, F.S.A.; Section 95.20(3), F.S.1969, F.S.A.; and Rule 1.110(g), RCP, 30 F.S.A.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleasesMiscellaneous

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

### Release Information

**CB12-TPS.79**
**Contact:**  Public Information Office301-763-3030

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, NOV. 13, 2012

## Track Our Economy Through the Census Bureau's Mobile App

This week the Department of Commerce will release two Census Bureau economic indicators: Advance Monthly Sales for Retail and Food Services for October 2012 (Nov. 14) and Manufacturing and Trade: Inventories and Sales for September 2012 (Nov. 14). Get the news on the go as it is released through the Census Bureau’s free, easy-to-use mobile app, “America's Economy,” available for download for both Apple and Android phones and tablets. The app provides real-time updates for 16 key economic indicators from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis. Internet address: <https://www.census.gov/mobile/>.

**No news release associated with this product. Tip Sheet only.**

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              FEB-2-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,755
<SECURITIES>                                     9,157
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     35,764
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,427
<PP&E>                                          34,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,321
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,040
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            88
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,393
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,321
<SALES>                                        171,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          120,309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,774
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (707)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,263
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,975
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,288
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,288
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91
        

</TABLE>
#### CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, etc., Petitioner, v. H. O. LASSETER, Sr., et al., Respondents.

No. 42048.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 14, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 2, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 256 So.2d 68.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Charles Henry SUMMIT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1316.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 2, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1973.

Henry E. Coleman, Key West, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HAVER-FIELD, TT.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant was informed against, tried by jury, convicted, and sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment for lewd and lascivious conduct upon a female child under the age of fourteen (14) [Fla. Stat. § 800.04, F.S.A.].

On appeal one of appellant’s contentions is that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence testimony concerning prior sexual offenses with the victim and the victim’s sister. We cannot agree.

We find Ross v. State, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 69 to be controlling. In Ross, this Court, citing Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So.2d 201 and Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654, held that in a prosecution for assault in a lewd and lascivious manner upon a girl under 14 years of age, evidence of similar conduct toward another young girl on a continuing series of occasions, was relevant and admissible to show character of the deed as to motive, intent, and absence of mistake.

Turning to the case sub judice, we find the testimony of the victim and her sister regarding prior similar conduct on the part of the defendant with them to show the character of the deed as to motive and intent to be relevant and admissible. Therefore, we hold the trial court to be correct in denying defendant’s motion for mistrial on the grounds that the above testimony was admitted improperly.

*671On appeal, defendant-appellant additionally argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. We disagree.

Upon a review of the evidence, we conclude that it was sufficient to support the judgment. See Giuliano v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 182.

We also have considered appellant’s remaining points on appeal and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed must be and hereby is affirmed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3149 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3149

 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
 to extend the matching fund waiver for projects approved under title 
                        23, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 1993

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
 to extend the matching fund waiver for projects approved under title 
                        23, United States Code.

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

SECTION 1. MATCHING FUND WAIVER.

    (a) Extension.--Section 1054 of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 120 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``1993'' and inserting 
        ``1995'';
            (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``1994'' and inserting 
        ``1996''; and
            (3) in subsection (c) by striking ``1995 and 1996'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``1997 and 1998''.
    (b) Modification of Repayment Agreements.--With respect to an 
increase in the Federal share of the cost of a project made pursuant to 
section 1054(a) of such Act before the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall modify any agreement for the 
repayment of such increase to take into account the amendment made by 
subsection (a)(2).

                                 <all>
```
Order entered October 28, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 00759 - CV DALLAS INDEPENDENT S CHOOL DISTRICT AND M ICHAEL L. WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER OF EDUC ATION, Appellant s/Cross - Appellees V. ADRIAN PETERS, Appellee /Cross - Appellant On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 13 - 01850 - I 

### O RDER W e GRANT the October 27, 2014 extension motions of appellants/cross

- appellees and ORDER them to file their briefs no later t han December 19, 2014

. No further extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
#### CITY OF MIAMI, Petitioner, v. Bob LEMMONS and the Florida Department of Commerce, Respondents.

No. 43286.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 20, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3513 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3513

  To terminate the gas turbine-modular helium reactor program of the 
Department of Energy, and to dedicate the savings to deficit reduction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 16, 1993

  Ms. Byrne introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To terminate the gas turbine-modular helium reactor program of the 
Department of Energy, and to dedicate the savings to deficit reduction.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF GAS TURBINE-MODULAR HELIUM REACTOR PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 2121 
through 2126 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 3081; 42 
U.S.C. 13491 et seq.), the Secretary of Energy shall take such actions 
as may be necessary to terminate, as soon as possible, the gas turbine-
modular helium reactor program of the Department of Energy.
    (b) Transfer of Project Funds to Deficit Reduction Fund.--Of the 
funds made available under the heading ``Department of Energy--Energy 
Supply, Research and Development Activities'' in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-126), $12,000,000 
shall be transferred to the Deficit Reduction Fund established by 
Executive Order 12858 (58 Fed. Reg. 42185). Such sum shall be in 
addition to the amounts specified in section 2(b) of such order, but 
shall be subject to the requirements and limitations set forth in 
sections 2(c) and 3 of such order.

                                 <all>
```