alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2006101EN.01000401.xml

| 11.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 101/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 101/4

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 10 April 2006

amending Decision 95/320/EC setting up a Scientific Committee for Occupational Exposure Limits to Chemical Agents

(2006/275/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Decision 95/320/EC (1) sets up a Scientific Committee for Occupational Exposure Limits to Chemical Agents, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Decision 95/320/EC (1) sets up a Scientific Committee for Occupational Exposure Limits to Chemical Agents, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’.

| (2) | Following the accession of new Member States in 2004, the provisions of Decision 95/320/EC concerning the composition of the Committee are no longer appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following the accession of new Member States in 2004, the provisions of Decision 95/320/EC concerning the composition of the Committee are no longer appropriate.

| (3) | To ensure that the Committee provides impartial scientific opinions of a high quality, it is important that its members should be independent and highly qualified. It is also necessary to maintain a high level of efficiency of the Committee. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

To ensure that the Committee provides impartial scientific opinions of a high quality, it is important that its members should be independent and highly qualified. It is also necessary to maintain a high level of efficiency of the Committee.

| (4) | The Committee should therefore be composed by a maximum of 21 members, selected from Member States proposals of suitable candidates and appointed by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Committee should therefore be composed by a maximum of 21 members, selected from Member States proposals of suitable candidates and appointed by the Commission.

| (5) | Decision 95/320/EC should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Decision 95/320/EC should be amended accordingly,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

In Article 3 of Decision 95/320/EC, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:

‘1.   The Committee shall be composed of not more than 21 members selected from among suitable candidates proposed by the Member States and reflecting the full range of scientific expertise which is necessary to fulfil the mandate in Article 2, including, in particular, chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology, occupational medicine and industrial hygiene, and general competence in setting OELs.

2.   The Commission shall appoint the members of the Committee, on the basis of their proven scientific expertise and experience, having regard to the need to ensure that the various specific areas are covered.’

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 April 2006.

For the Commission

Vladimír ŠPIDLA

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 188, 9.8.1995, p. 14.

1

---
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1902 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Corvus herbicide. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

Mr. ROBERTS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Corvus herbicide. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CORVUS HERBICIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1902 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixtures containing 

thiencarbazone-methyl (methyl 4-[(4,5-dihydro-3-methoxy4-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4- 

triazol-1- 

yl)carbonylsulfamoyl]-5- 

methylthiophene-3- 

carboxylate), isoxaflutole (5- 

cyclopropyl-1,2-oxazol-4- 

yl)(α,α,α-trifluoro-2-mesyl-ptolyl)methanone and 

cyprosulfamide (N-({4- 

[(cyclopropylamino)carbonyl]phenyl}sulfonyl)- 

2-methoxybenzamide) (CAS 

Nos. 317815–83–1, 141112– 

29–0, 221667–31–8) (provided for in subheading 

3808.93.15) ........................... 1.9% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.9 MB)

Tags:Loglines, DLA Troop Support, January 2019, Simerly

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
SERVED JULY 12, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

^ SYANGRO WEST, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10NM0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2010-0622 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009NM700203) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

lie A. Yoder y ^ 

Chief Admit 

Attachment - Service List 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 
FAA Docket No. CP10NM0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Kenneth A. Scott 

Blair Hilty, Attorneys at Law 

14711 Pebble Bend Drive 

Houston, TX 77068-2923 

TEL: 713-862-5599 

FAX: 713-868-9444 

Scott R. Morris, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2007 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202 366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeNewsCommentaries     Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians
        
            Commentaries
 Keyword
 Type Select a CategoryTop StoriesMission/TrainingFeaturesSecretary of the AFAF Chief of StaffChief Master Sgt. of the AFCommentariesSequestration NewsSpace/TechnologyHumanitarianAFSO 21Women's History Month 1-15EnvironmentalWarrior CareDiversityDignified TransferSafetyHeritageAir Force FamilyPersonnel MattersCommander's Call TopicsHaiti Earthquake ReliefDon't Ask Don't TellSuicide PreventionWarrior GamesEnergyAircraftEtchbergerSexual AssaultOperation TomodachiOperation Odyssey Dawn2011 Appropriations InformationHurricane Irene9/11AFAWeek in PhotosThrough Airmen's EyesThrough AIrmen's Eyes FeaturesThrough Their Words2012 Appropriations InformationAfrican American History MonthAfrican American Heritage Month 1-15African American Heritage Month 16-29Fiscal Year BudgetAir Force StoriesColorado WildfireChief of Staff ArchiveHurricane IsaacAFA 2012APP RSSAPP Airman VisualsExpeditionary OperationsHurricane SandyTransition GPSAir Force in SpaceSports/RecreationH1N1Women's History Month 16-30Oklahoma Tornado ReliefMemorial DayCOVID-19 CommentariesCOVID-19
 RecentOldestTitle A > ZTitle Z > A
 Aug. 11, 2017Narrow the scope, improve the force
        Our collective failure to lead boldly and teach others to do the same has led us towards the end of our runway.  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Stephanie Stone

,

Appellant

,

v.

The State of Texas

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 343

- C R

Appeal from the

403 rd District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC# D

- 1

- DC

- 16

- 907410 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief

until May 24, 2017

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. J. Deniz Kadi rhan , the Appellant’s Attorney,

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before Ma y 24 , 201 7

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5 th day of April , 201 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the Registrant) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Charles J. Schreiber Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of his 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 results of operations of the Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 14, 2009



/s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.Charles J. Schreiber, Jr. Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Affirm and Opinion Filed March 3, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00838-CV CHERYL YOUNG, Appellant V. DALLAS COUNTY ET AL., Appellees On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. TX-19-01116 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Miskel Cheryl Young appeals pro se from a defaul t judgment in favor of several local government entities. Young presents a genera l plea for assistance and fair treatment from the court system. However, unfort unately, Young’s brief lacks any of the required content for an appellant’s brief, in cluding a list of issues, any discussion of the facts of the case, or any legal reasoning. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1. An appellant’s brief must concisely stat e all issues presented for review and must contain a clear, conc ise argument for the contenti ons made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. In re S.V. , 599 S.W.3d 25, 41 (Tex. App.—–2– Dallas 2017, pet. denied). We may not make a part y’s argument for her. Id. “Bare assertions of error, without argument or authority, waive any error.” Id. Because Young’s brief is inadequate, the appellate rules prevent us from considering the substance of her case. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.

210838F.P05 /Emily Miskel / EMILY MISKEL JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT CHERYL YOUNG, Appellant
No. 05-21-00838-CV V.
DALLAS COUNTY ET AL., Appellees On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. TX-19-01116. Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel. Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. It is ORDERED that appellees DALLAS CO UNTY ET AL. recover their costs of this appeal from appellant CHERYL YOUNG.
Judgment entered this 3rd day of March 2023.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          50,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,016
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,565
<PP&E>                                           7,056
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,177
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           891
<OTHER-SE>                                     124,604
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   165,672
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,648
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,117
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,995
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,438
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,557
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,557
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Newman, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered May 23, 1989, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to hear and report on the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court is to file its report with all convenient speed.

We agree with the defendant’s contention that he established, prima facie, that the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner *(see, Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79; *People v Jenkins,*75 NY2d 550; *744
      *People v Mack,*143 AD2d 280). The prosecutor in this case was apparently prepared for defense counsel’s application as he was ready to explain why he had used six of his eight peremptory challenges to strike black venirepersons from the petit jury. The Supreme Court, however, determined that explanations were not necessary, apparently based upon the court’s mistaken conclusion that *Batson*analysis was inapposite to a case, such as at bar, where both the defendant and the complainant were black. Thus, the prosecutor was never afforded the opportunity, which he sought, to explain his use of peremptory challenges himself *(see, People v Jenkins, supra; People v Bozella,*150 AD2d 471; *People v Howard,*128 AD2d 804). The Supreme Court’s determination of this matter was erroneous *(cf., Powers v Ohio,*499 US —, 111 S Ct 1364) as the pattern of the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges gave rise to a prima facie inference that the prosecutor had challenged these venirepersons on the basis of their race *(see, People v Blunt,*162 AD2d 86). Accordingly, the matter is remitted for an evidentiary hearing for the prosecutor to offer race-neutral explanations for his challenges, if he is able to do so *(see, People v Miles,*161 AD2d 672; *People v Bush,*157 AD2d 736), pending which the appeal from the judgment of conviction is held in abeyance *(see, People v Levon,*166 AD2d 670; *People v Sandy,*150 AD2d 625). Kunzeman, J. P., Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00036-CR

COREY DEWAYNE WILBERT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 76th District Court

Camp County, Texas

Trial Court No. CF-17-01787

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Corey Dewayne Wilbert has filed an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered by the 

76th Judicial District Court of Camp County. Wilbert retained Clay Dean Thomas to represent 

him on appeal, but Thomas has filed a motion to withdraw with this Court averring that Wilbert 

no longer desires his services. Thomas’ motion satisfied the requirements of Rule 6.5 of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure, and we hereby grant the motion to withdraw. See TEX. R. APP. P.

6.5.

In light of these circumstances, we abate this case to the trial court so that it may conduct 

whatever hearings are necessary to make the following determinations: (1) whether Wilbert still 

desires to prosecute this appeal and, if so, (2) whether Wilbert is indigent and entitled to the 

appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal. If Wilbert is determined to be indigent, then 

the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him on appeal.

The trial court may enter any orders necessary to implement these directives. Any hearing 

shall be conducted by the trial court within fifteen days of the date of this order. Appropriate 

orders and findings shall be sent to this Court in the form of a supplemental clerk’s record within 

ten days of the date of the hearing contemplated by this order. The reporter’ record of any hearing 

shall be filed with this Court within ten days of the date of the hearing contemplated by this order.

All appellate timetables are stayed and will resume on our receipt of the supplemental 

appellate record.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: March 20, 2019