alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2006062EN.01002401.xml

| 3.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 62/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 62/24

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 379/2006

of 2 March 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 24 February to 2 March 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 March 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 2 March 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
#### Holiday Management Associates, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, v Vincent M. Albanese, Respondent-Appellant.

In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, (1) the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated December 20, 1989, as denied its motion for summary judgment, and granted so much of the defendant’s cross motion as sought to conditionally strike the complaint, and for leave to amend the answer, and (2) the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the order as denied that branch of his cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the plaintiffs motion is granted to the extent of granting it summary judgment on the issue of liability, the defendant’s counterclaim is severed, and the defendant’s cross motion is denied in its entirety; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for an inquest on the issue of damages; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

"The general rule is that a broker who 'produces a person ready and willing to enter into a contract upon his employer’s terms * * * has earned his commission’ ” *(Feinberg Bros. Agency v Berted Realty Co.,*70 NY2d 828, 830, quoting from *776
      *Tanenbaum v Boehm,*202 NY 293, 299; *see also, Holzer v Robbins,*141 AD2d 505).

In this case, there is no dispute that the defendant employed the plaintiffs services as a broker to sell his property and that the plaintiffs efforts and negotiations procured a purchaser, resulting in the execution of a contract, dated February 9, 1989, for the sale of the premises for the sum of $860,000. Paragraph 8 of the contract of sale provides as follows: "Purchaser represents that Purchaser has not dealt with any broker in connection with this sale other than Millie Marsh of Holiday Management Associates, Inc., and Seller agrees to pay broker any commission which may be due pursuant to separate agreement”.

Under the circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for an inquest to assess damages. The defendant’s counterclaim for damages, emanating from an alleged breach of fiduciary duty, is severed from the main action for recovery of the plaintiffs brokerage commission. Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(b)

                            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 CheckFree Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Peter J. Kight, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 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.



                              /s/ Peter J. Kight
                         -----------------------------------------------------
                         Peter J. Kight, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                         of CheckFree Corporation
                         September 25, 2002
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Michael Jordan Friedman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Fresh Harvest Products, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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/ Michael Jordan Friedman _________________________________________ Michael Jordan Friedman, Chief Executive Officer And Chief Financial Officer  Date: December 15, 2006    /
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1985 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1985

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain used gear boxes 
                         used in remanufacture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 2009

  Mr. Wicker introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain used gear boxes 
                         used in remanufacture.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN USED GEAR BOXES USED IN REMANUFACTURE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.32 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain used gear boxes used 
in remanufacture) is amended by striking the date in the effective 
period column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                        MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP, INC.
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



<TABLE>
<S>                                                   <C>                                         <C>
                                                      Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.
                                                      F/k/a Star Holding Company    50%

Meadowbrook, Inc.                                     American Indemnity Insurance Co., Ltd.      Crest Financial Corporation
                                                      Star Insurance Co. (50%)
Association Self Insurance                                                                        American Highway Carriers
Services, Inc.                                        Savers Property and Casualty                Association
                                                      Insurance Co.
Meadowbrook Intermediaries, Inc.                                                                  Liberty Premium Finance, Inc.
                                                      Ameritrust Insurance Corporation
Meadowbrook Risk Management, Inc.                                                                 Interline Insurance Services, Inc.
                                                      Williamsburg National Insurance Co.
Meadowbrook of Nevada, Inc.                                                                       Commercial Carriers Insurance
                                                      Preferred Insurance Company, Ltd.           Agency, Inc.
Meadowbrook Insurance Agency, Inc.                     (Bermuda)

Meadowbrook Risk Management, Ltd.
 (Barbados)

Meadowbrook Risk Management, Limited
 (Bermuda)

Florida Preferred Administrators, Inc.

Case Management Resources, Inc.

Meadowbrook of Florida, Inc.

Meadowbrook Insurance, Inc.

Preferred Insurance Agency, Inc.

Preferred Comp Insurance Agency of
New Hampshire, Inc.

TPA Insurance Agency, Inc.

TPA Insurance Agency of New Hampshire, Inc.

Meadowbrook of Canada, Ltd.

Market Place Resources, Inc.

National Osteopathic Physicians Purchasing Group, Inc.

National Realty Liability Alliance, Inc.
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 5.1

Certification of Aaron Regent, Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of Falconbridge Limited (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Aaron Regent, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Date: March 29, 2005 |  |  |                                                    
|-------------------- |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | /s/AARON REGENTAaron Regent
Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.1 to New Ulm Telecom, Inc. Form 8-K dated December 22, 2006







EXHIBIT 10-1


 





	
            Fax Information
 	
             
 
	
            December 22, 2006
 	
            No. of Pages
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
            To: 
 	
            From
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
            Co.:
 	
            Co.
 	
            CoBank
 	
             
 
	
            Fax #:
 	
            Phone #
 	
            1-800-255-6190
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 







	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
		Payoff Statement
	

	Calculation Date:   December 22, 2006 	  	  	Payoff Date:   December 22, 2006 	  	  	Relationship Manager
ROGER OPP 	  	  
	 
	

	ULM TELECOM 	  	  	 	  	  	00013301 	  	  
	







	Agreement #			Obligation Number			Principal Balance		Accrued Interest		Basis			Interest Rate		Per Diem		Prepayment
Penalties
	 
	ML0788T2	 	 	001282354	 	 	$	 7,500,000.00	 	$	    16,182.32	 	360	 	 	 	6.9600%	 	$	     1,450.00	 	 	          	 
	 
	 
	Total: 	 	 	 	 	 	$	 7,500,000.00	 	$	    16,182.32	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	$	     1,450.00	 	$	         0.00	 
			 			 





Summary



	Principal Due: 	 	 	$	 7,500,000.00	 	ACH Customer 	 	 	 		 
	Accrued Int to today: 	  	  	$	    16,182.32	 
	Interest to Payoff Date: 	  	  	$	         0.00	 	Yes                                        No 	  	  
	Prepayment Penalty: ** 	  	  	$	         0.00	 
	Cash Manager Fees
(Current Month) 	  	  
	 
	Cash Manager Fees
(Prior Month Due) 	  	  
	Unadvanced
Commitment Fee 	  	  	$	     3,864.58	 
	Wire Fees 	  	  	$	        16.00	 
		 
	 
	Total Due: December 22, 2006 	  	  	$ 	 7,520,062.90 	  	Total Per Diem 	  	  	$ 	 1,450.00 	  
		 			 
	 
	

	 
	NOTE:   This payoff quote is valid only through the payoff date shown above.

Furthermore, to the extent that you continue to use CoBank Cash Manager services, additional fees may apply.

	 
	** Prepayment penalties noted on this payoff statement are valid for the calculation date only, and will have to be recalculated if collected funds are not received on the date of calculation.

	 
	For questions, please contact CoBank Customer Service at 1-800-255-6190.  Our regular business hours are 6:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Mountain Time.

Funds must be received by 4:00 p.m. Mountain Time for same day credit.
#### Louis J. RIZZO, Plaintiff, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH, Department of Employment Security, and Utah State Training School, Defendants.

No. 20815.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 23, 1986.

Donald E. Elkins, Provo, for plaintiff.

K. Allan Zabel, Salt Lake City, for defendants.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff was employed as an institutional cook at the Utah State Training School from November 6, 1981, to December 14, *7901984. He was dissatisfied with what he considered low wages and applied for employment as a Vocational Instructor Chef I at the Utah State Prison. Plaintiff received a letter inviting him for an interview for the prison job. On the day he received the letter, and before the interview, plaintiff resigned his job at the training school. He was not hired for the job at the prison.

Plaintiff applied for unemployment benefits, but the administrative law judge found that he had quit work voluntarily without good cause and denied benefits pursuant to U.C.A., 1958, § 35-4-5(a). The administrative law judge also found that a denial of benefits to plaintiff would not be against equity and good conscience. The Board of Review affirmed.

Plaintiff appeals the decision of the Board of Review, arguing (1) that he had a reasonable basis for believing that he had obtained a new job, and the administrative law judge ruled contrary to the weight of the evidence, and (2) that it is against equity and good conscience to deny benefits.

We have reviewed the record and find substantial evidence to support the findings of fact. The administrative law judge found that plaintiff did not have a reasonable expectation of a new job and therefore had no good cause to quit. Though plaintiff had been told by “several individuals” that he stood a good chance of being hired, he was not given such assurance from a person with authority to hire, nor was he given a definite date to begin work. Where the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, they are conclusive.1 Since the findings are so substantiated, they are affirmed.

Neither do we disturb the Board’s ruling on plaintiff’s second issue. Plaintiff’s actions in quitting before he had assurance of another job and before he had been given a definite date to begin working were unreasonable. Further, plaintiff did not at any time attempt to go back to his job at the training school, though his supervisor recommended on his termination papers that he be rehired if he sought his job back. Equity and good conscience do not dictate that he be awarded benefits under these circumstances. Affirmed.

1

. U.C.A., 1953, § 35-4-10(i); *Martinez v. Bd. of Review,*25 Utah 2d 131, 477 P.2d 587 (1970); *Whitney v. Bd. of Review,*Utah, 585 P.2d 780 (1978).
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2007 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-butyne-1,4-diol, polymer with 

(chloromethyl)oxirane, brominated, dehydrochlorinated, methoxylated and 

triethyl phosphate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-butyne-1,4-diol, polymer with (chloromethyl)oxirane, brominated, 

dehydrochlorinated, methoxylated and triethyl phosphate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-BUTYNE-1,4-DIOL, POLYMER WITH 

4 (CHLOROMETHYL)OXIRANE, BROMINATED, 

5 DEHYDROCHLORINATED, METHOXYLATED 

6 AND TRIETHYL PHOSPHATE. 

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

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2007 IS

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 2-butyne-1,4-diol, polymer 

with (chloromethyl)oxirane, 

brominated, 

dehydrochlorinated, 

methoxylated (CAS No. 

68441–62–3) and triethyl 

phosphate (CAS No. 78–40– 

0) (provided for in subheading 3824.90.92) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2449

FRANK EVANS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RIVER RIDERS, INCORPORATED, a West Virginia

Corporation,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

MARK GRIMES, President/owner, River Riders,

Incorporated; PETER LIGOCKI, a/k/a Carp,

Defendants.

No. 95-2558

FRANK EVANS,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RIVER RIDERS, INCORPORATED, a West Virginia

Corporation; MARK GRIMES, President/owner,

River Riders, Incorporated; PETER LIGOCKI,

a/k/a Carp,

Defendants - Appellants.
2

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CA-93-31-3)

Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

No. 95-2449 affirmed and No. 95-2558 dismissed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Frank Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Anita Rose Casey, MEYER, DARRAGH,

BUCKLER, BEBENEK & ECK, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

In Appeal No. 95-2449, Appellant appeals from the district

court's order dismissing his personal injury action. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Evans v. River Riders, Inc., No. CA-93-31-3 (N.D.W.

Va. June 21, 1995). We further deny Appellant's motion to stay the

action and Appellee's motion to dismiss the action.

In Appeal No. 95-2558, the Appellants, Defendants below, noted

this appeal outside the time period established by Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(3), failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period and are

not entitled to relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time

periods established by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). The district court entered its order on June 21, 1995;

Evans noted his appeal on July 20, 1995. Appellants' notice of

appeal was filed on August 15, 1995. Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(3),

the Appellants had fourteen days from the date Evans noted his

appeal to note their appeal. Appellants' failure to note a timely

appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this

court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss

the appeal.
4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 95-2449 - AFFIRMED

No. 95-2558 - DISMISSED
## Notice of Receipt of a Clean Air Act Waiver Application to Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of

Gasoline to 15 Percent

Date EPA Staff Attendees Nam e of Organization Summary of Discussion Written Comments Provided? Did they also submit to Docket? Da te sent to EPA

3 /4/10 Margo Oge

oge.margo@epa.gov

Karl Simon simon.karl@epa.gov

Paul Argyropoulos argyropoulos.paul@epa .gov

Paul Machiele (by video) machiele.paul@epa.gov In Person : Representatives from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and its constituent members including: Al Jessel from Chevron, John Medley from Exx on

- Mobil, Charles Schleyer from Exxon

- Mobil, Al Mannato from API, Jeanne Mitchell from API, Bob Leidich from BP, and Bob Green from API. On the Phone: David Lax from API, Jim Williams from API and Gary Schoonveld from ConocoPhillips. API discussed the dat a that are currently under development by the Coordinating Research Council and the Department of Energy that investigate the effects of E15 on motor vehicles and nonroad engines. API also discussed the issues raised in EPA’s letter to Grow th Energy dated November 30, 2009. API discussed the other necessary changes that EPA, states, and industry would need to take in order to permit the introduction of E15 into commerce. See attached w

ritten comments for more information. Yes, API provided presentation

m aterials. 3/4/2010