alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2006005EN.01000801.xml

| 10.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/8

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 23/2006

of 9 January 2006

amending, for the eighth time, Council Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1), and in particular Article 10(a) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 lists the persons covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 lists the persons covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

| (2) | The Commission is empowered to amend that Annex, taking into account Council Decisions implementing Common Position 2004/694/CFSP of 1 October 2005 on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of ICTY (2). Council Decision 2005/927/CFSP (3) of implements that Common Position. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 should, therefore, be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission is empowered to amend that Annex, taking into account Council Decisions implementing Common Position 2004/694/CFSP of 1 October 2005 on further measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of ICTY (2). Council Decision 2005/927/CFSP (3) of implements that Common Position. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 should, therefore, be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 9 January 2006.

For the Commission

Eneko LANDÁBURU

Director-General for External Relations

---

(1)  
  OJ L 315, 14.10.2004, p. 14. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1636/2005 of the Commission (OJ L 261, 7.10.2005, p. 20).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 315, 14.10.2004, p. 52.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 337, 22.12.2005, p. 71.

3

---

ANNEX

The following person shall be removed from Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004:

Gotovina, Ante. Date of birth: 12.10.1955. Place of birth: Island of Pasman, Municipality of Zadar, Republic of Croatia. Nationality: (a) Croatian, (b) French.

---
EXHIBIT 10.47

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                        INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
                           TALK.COM HOLDING CORP. AND
                       BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                               DATED MAY 22, 2000

Pursuant to this Amendment (the "Amendment"), Talk.Com Holding Corp.("Talk.Com")
and BellSouth  Telecommunications,  Inc.  ("BellSouth")  hereinafter referred to
collectively as the "Parties" hereby agree to amend that certain Interconnection
Agreement (the "Agreement") between BellSouth and Talk.com dated May 22, 2000.

NOW THEREFORE,  in consideration of the mutual  provisions  contained herein and
other good and valuable consideration,  the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby  acknowledged,  Talk.com  and  BellSouth  hereby  covenant  and  agree as
follows:

1.   The following  network  elements  located under End Office  Switching (Port
     Usage),  Tandem Switching (Port Usage) (Local or Access Tandem), and Common
     (Shared ) Transport of Exhibit C, Rates,  of  Attachment 2 for the state of
     Florida,  are hereby  replaced  with the  network  elements  identified  in
     Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of this Amendment:

     End Office Switching Function, per mou

     End Office Switching Function, add'l mou (5)

     End Office Interoffice Trunk Port - Shared, per mou

     Tandem Switching Function per mou

     Tandem Interoffice Trunk Port - Shared per mou

     Common (Shared) transport per mile per mou

     Common (Shared) transport facilities Termination mou

2.   All of the other provisions of the Agreement,  dated  May 22,  2000,  shall
     remain in full force and effect.

<PAGE>


3.   The  Parties  agree that  either or both of the  Parties is  authorized  to
     submit this Amendment to the respective  state  regulatory  authorities for
     approval subject to Section 252(e) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of
     1996.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed
by their respective duly authorized representatives on the date indicated below.

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.                 Talk.com Holding Corp

By:    /s/                                        By:    /s/
   -------------------------------                    --------------------------

Name:   Patrick C. Finlen                         Name:    Kevin Grifo
     -----------------------------                     -------------------------

Title:    Managing Director                       Title:      Executive VP
       ---------------------------                       -----------------------

Date:    December 26, 2000                        Date:  December 22, 2000
     -----------------------------                      ------------------------
1 

### Werner, Christopher

From: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 7:11 PM To: Werner, Christopher Cc: Lorang, Phil; Beaver, Melinda Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 1 3563: EPA NPRM -- Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirement s for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55) Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_E0135 63_Regional Haze_ 2060....docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Categories: Regional Haze



### Attached please find the summary of interagency com ments under EO 12866 and 13563 for the draft propos ed rule entitled, Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirement s for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55).

Thank you and please let me know if you have any co mments or questions.

Aaron L. Szabo Policy Analyst Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget 202-395-3621 Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
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 (0.14 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### In the Matter of Mohammad S. Akhtar, Respondent, v Cesar Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated July 29, 1988, which denied the petitioner’s application to re-enroll as a Medicaid provider, the appeal, as limited by the appellant’s brief, is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), entered November 11, 1989, as, upon reargument, granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner as an authorized Medicaid provider.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

*540Contrary to the petitioner’s claims, he has no right under 18 NYCRR part 504 to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his application for re-enrollment in the Medicaid program was properly denied *(see, Matter of Siddiqui v Commissioner of N. Y. State Dept. of Social Servs.,*170 AD2d 922; *Matter of Garcia v Perales,*168 AD2d 557; *Matter of G & S Pharmacy v Perales,*151 AD2d 668), nor does he have any due process right to such a hearing *(see, Winyard v Perales,*161 AD2d 317; *Matter of Barata v Perales,*157 AD2d 623; *Matter of G & S Pharmacy v Perales, supra).*In addition, we find that the determination denying the petitioner’s application for re-enrollment was neither arbitrary nor capricious and the Supreme Court, giving no reasons, improperly annulled the determination. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### Bart Schwartz, Appellant, v Stecher Jaglom *&*Prutzman et al., Respondents. Bart Schwartz et al., Appellants, v Stecher Jaglom & Prutzman et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered on or about July 13, 1990, denying plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify counsel for the Stecher defendants, based on participation by a partner in said counsel’s firm in the pro bono special masters program, unanimously affirmed, with $250 costs.

Appeal from an order of the same court (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered on or about October 30, 1990, denying plaintiffs’ reargument of a similar motion to disqualify based on said counsel’s failure to disclose its participation in the special masters program, unanimously dismissed, the order being nonappealable, with $250 costs.

Order, same court (Greenfield, J.), entered on or about November 20, 1990, denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an *335earlier order which had dismissed the complaint and enjoined further litigation without permission of the court, unanimously affirmed, with $250 costs.

Plaintiffs’ attack on counsel’s participation in the special masters program was wholly unwarranted. There is no evidence that counsel participated as a special master in any litigation remotely related to the cases at bar. Such volunteer assistance to the court does not constitute a conflict of interest which might preclude practice before the same court.

There was insufficient "new” evidence to warrant amendment of the complaint, at this stage, especially in the absence of a copy of the proposed amended pleading. It is further noted that this court has already affirmed the dismissal of these actions on their merits, as well as affirming the injunction against further related litigation without leave of court (166 AD2d 386). Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Kupferman, JJ.
#### Thomas Hugh MALONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF COLORADO, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, and Hearing Officer, G. Meyer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 84CA0956.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Aug. 29, 1985.

*364Alan J. Pomeranz, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Steven M. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants-appel-lees.

ENOCH, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff, Thomas H. Malone, appeals from a trial court judgment which affirmed the Motor Vehicle Division’s revocation of his driver’s license under § 42-2-122.-l(l)(a)(I), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17). We affirm.

We do not agree with plaintiff’s contention that the lack of a Department of Health operational checklist resulted in an insufficient demonstration by the Division of the accuracy of the testing device and that this violated his due process rights.

When there is evidence that a breath testing device is operated by one certified to use it and that the test is administered in accordance with division of health regulations, a *prima facie*case for the introduction of breath test results is established. *Aultman v. Motor Vehicle Division,*706 P.2d 5 (Colo.App.1985). Although, here, the operational checklist was for some unexplained reason not in the Department’s file, the arresting officer testified that he was certified to operate an intoxilyzer, that he had prepared and followed an operational checklist, and that the checklist and the readings on the test card showed that the intoxilyzer was working properly on the evening that plaintiff was tested.

We hold that this testimony is sufficient to support the hearing officer’s decision, even in the absence of the operational checklist.

We find no merit in plaintiff’s other contentions.

Judgment affirmed.

KELLY and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1



                                  EXHIBIT 23.1



Consent of Independent Public Accountants

      As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report on the consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and
cash flows for the year ended December 29 ,1996 included in this Form 10-K into
Personnel Group of America, Inc.'s previously filed registration statements on
Form S-8 (File No. 333-19541 and 333-39361) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-31863).


                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Charlotte, North Carolina,
  April 5, 1999.
**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 AgFeed Industries, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Xiong
      Junhong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to his 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.





Dated:
                August 11, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Xiong JunhongXiong
                JunhongChief
                Executive Officer





This
      certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
#### GLENSIDE STEEL COMPANY and Gerry Schmitt and Company, Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee.

Customs Appeal No. 74-18.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

Oct. 17, 1974.

David O. -Elliott, New York City (Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, New York City), attys. of record, for appellants. Irving Levine and Hadley S. King, New York City, of counsel.

*564Carla A. Hills, Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrew P. Vance, Chief, Customs Section, James Caffentzis and Robert Masters, New York City, for United States.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the judgment of the United States Customs Court, 71 Cust.Ct. 23, C.D. 4466, 364 F.Supp. 1398 (1973). The court held that plaintiffs (appellants here) had failed to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the appraisement of the salvaged steel, and that plaintiffs had failed to prove that their claimed values were correct.

After a thorough consideration of the record, of the briefs, and of the oral arguments, we have concluded that we are in full agreement with the opinion of the Customs Court, and we adopt it as our own. The judgment is affirmed.
#### Deborah Fediuk, Respondent, v Andry Fediuk, Appellant.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Fogarty, J.), dated October 3, 1980, which awarded custody of the infant issue of the marriage to the mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the father’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.17

December 21, 2006

Mr. Bernard Mariette
Quiksilver, Inc.
15202 Graham Street
Huntington Beach, California
92649

     RE: AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Dear Bernard:

Reference is made to your Employment Agreement ("Agreement") dated May 25, 2005
by and between Quiksilver, Inc. ("Quiksilver") and you. Capitalized terms used
in this letter and not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in
the Agreement.

This letter amends the Agreement as follows:

1.   The parties agree to add clause 9(e) to the Agreement as follows:

"(e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the Company reasonably
determines that any payment or benefit under this Agreement is subject to
Section 409A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, such payment or benefit shall be
made at such times and in such forms as the Company reasonably determines are
required to comply with Code Section 409A (including, without limitation, in the
case of a "specified employee" within the meaning of Code Section 409A, any
payments that would otherwise be made during the six-month period following
separation of service will be paid in a lump sum after the end of the six-month
period) and the Treasury Regulations and the transitional relief thereunder;
provided, however, that in no event will the Company be required to provide you
with any additional payment or benefit in the event that any of your payments or
benefits trigger additional income tax under Code Section 409A or in the event
that the Company changes the time or form of your payments or benefits in
accordance with this paragraph."

Except as expressly amended by this letter, the terms, conditions, covenants and
agreements contained in the Agreement remain unaffected by this letter and
continue in full force and effect. This letter is intended by the parties to
satisfy the requirement in clause 13 of the Agreement that any modification or
amendment to the Agreement be in writing and signed by both parties. Further,
this letter and the Agreement constitute the entire agreement between the
parties with respect to the subject matter set forth herein and therein and
supercede all other agreements, proposals, oral or written statements. Please
confirm your agreement by signing and returning one copy of this letter to the
undersigned, whereupon this letter will become a binding agreement between the
parties.

Very truly yours,


By:
    ---------------------------------
Name: Charles Exon
Title: Secretary and General Counsel
       Executive Vice President
       Business and Legal Affairs -
       International

Accepted and agreed to this ____ day of ____________, 2006


By:
    ---------------------------------
Name: Bernard Mariette
Title: President
# GILARIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Department of Env~ronmental Quality Post Office Box 97 Sacaton, Anzona 85247 (520) 562-2234 

### . Fax (520)562-2245 July 11,2007 Wayne Nastri Regional Administrator 

# RECEIVED U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

### - Region 

### IX 75 Hawthorne Street 

### JuL 

### 2 

### 7 

## 2007 San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901 Air D~disror.~, AIR 

## - Lf. Attn: Andrew Steckel U.S. EPA, REGION 9 Re: Submittalof the GRIC Air Quality Program Plan for Federal Enforceability under Section 11

0 ofthe Clean Air Act, 40 C.F.R., Part 5 1, Appendix V and the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) 

### Dear Mr. Nastri The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) ispleased to submit the GRIC Air Quality Management Program Plan for your review and approval. Please find attached, the support documentationnecessary to evaluate the GRIC Air Quality Management Program Plan for federal enforceability under Section 1 10 of the Clean Air Act, 40 C.F.R., Part 5 1,Appendix V and the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR). GRIC has been working closely with EPA Region 

### IX personnel to ensure that the support documentation included in this submittal fulfills the requirementsof the Clean Air Act 

### (CAA). GRIC followed the check list (enclosed) and Section 110 of the CAA and feels that this packet is complete with the exception of the GRICjurisdictional letter requested as part of the TAS submittal, MOA's for Criminal Enforcement and delegation ofNESHAPs and MACT standards, and an updated emissions inventory. The GRIC Law Office is currently drafting the jurisdictional letter and is working with EPA Counsel on the MOAs. GRIC expects to complete the letter and MOAs within the next few days. The GRIC DEQ has been working with an environmental consultantto update the GRIC 1997 Emissions Inventory which will be submitted upon completion. The GRIC DEQ will continue workingwith EPA Region IX personnelto completethe GRIC TitleV submittal packet by the end of August 2007. Ifyou have any questionsor need addifianddau~entation 

### ple~e cantactpaniel Blair at (520) 562- 2234 ext 

### 24 1.

-. Margaret Cook, 

# - 

# <.-

-. 1- 

### - ---.. ., -- -. C 

### --_

.. .