alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2006031EN.01000901.xml

| 3.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 31/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 31/9

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 187/2006

of 2 February 2006

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 18th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) and in particular the second indent of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 of 15 July 2005 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2005/2006 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 of 15 July 2005 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2005/2006 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 18th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 the maximum amount of the export refund shall be 31,712 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 February 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 2 February 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 185, 16.7.2005, p. 3.

2

---
# L_2006015EN.01004201.xml

| 20.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 15/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 15/42

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 95/2006

of 19 January 2006

on the issue of import licences for sugar and sugar and cocoa mixtures with ACP/OCT or EC/OCT cumulation of origin

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 192/2002 of 31 January 2002 laying down detailed rules for issuing import licences for sugar and sugar and cocoa mixtures with ACP/OCT or EC/OCT cumulation of origin (2), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 6(4) of Annex III to Decision 2001/822/EC allows ACP/EC-OCT cumulation of origin in the case of products falling within Chapter 17 and tariff headings 1806 10 30 and 1806 10 90 up to an annual quantity of 28 000 tonnes of sugar. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 6(4) of Annex III to Decision 2001/822/EC allows ACP/EC-OCT cumulation of origin in the case of products falling within Chapter 17 and tariff headings 1806 10 30 and 1806 10 90 up to an annual quantity of 28 000 tonnes of sugar.

| (2) | Applications have been submitted to the national authorities in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 192/2002 for the issue of import licences for a total quantity of 84 000 tonnes, exceeding the quantity laid down in Decision 2001/822/EC. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Applications have been submitted to the national authorities in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 192/2002 for the issue of import licences for a total quantity of 84 000 tonnes, exceeding the quantity laid down in Decision 2001/822/EC.

| (3) | The Commission must therefore set the reducing coefficient for the issue of import licences and suspend the submission of further licence applications for 2006, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Commission must therefore set the reducing coefficient for the issue of import licences and suspend the submission of further licence applications for 2006,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Import licences covered by applications submitted by 7 January 2006 under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 192/2002 shall be issued for 33,3333 % of the quantity applied for.

Article 2

The submission of further applications for 2006 is hereby suspended.

Article 3

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

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

Done at Brussels, 19 January 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 314, 30.11.2001, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 55. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 96/2004 (OJ L 15, 22.1.2004, p. 3).

2

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Orlando Upshure, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gallagher, J.), both rendered July 6, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. N10824/88, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. N10946/88, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

On June 20, 1988, the defendant was arrested after selling crack-cocaine to an undercover police officer during a "buy and bust” operation outside of a house on Union Hall Street in Queens County. Two weeks later, on July 5, 1988, the *662defendant was again arrested after selling crack-cocaine to the same undercover officer during another "buy and bust” operation at the same location.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial due to statements made by the prosecutor « during summation. Initially, we note that the defendant’s challenge to only one of the allegedly improper statements was preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the challenged remarks of the prosecutor were made in fair response to those made by defense counsel during summation *(see, People v Street,*124 AD2d 841). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1811 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chime rod assemblies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 20, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chime rod 

assemblies. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHIME ROD ASSEMBLIES. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Chime rod assemblies for 

clocks (provided for in subheading 9114.90.50) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1811 IS

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of WorldAir Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year endedDecember 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Gilberto M. Duarte, Jr., ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the“Act”), that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934, as amended; and           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    result of operations of the Company.     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuantto Section 906 of the Act and is not being filed as part ofthe Report or as a separate disclosure document.     /s/ Gilberto M. Duarte, Jr.       Gilberto M. Duarte, Jr. *Chief Financial Officer*March 29, 2005
76
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          36,535
<SECURITIES>                                    24,533
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,430
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,470
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,700
<PP&E>                                          84,366
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,446
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,462
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           564
<OTHER-SE>                                     183,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,112
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               233,864
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  277,213
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 632
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,344)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (641)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,703)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,703)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
#### Sherwood Village Cooperative Section "B”, Inc., Ap*462pellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

In an action to recover moneys had and received, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated October 20, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff owns two adjoining buildings in Rego Park, Queens. By notice dated June 11, 1975, the defendant advised the plaintiff of the need for it to repair its sidewalks within 20 days after service of the notice. The notice advised the plaintiff that when the work was done, the plaintiff had to request a reinspection. Furthermore, the notice stated that in the event the work was not done within the time specified, the defendant would make the repairs and bill the plaintiff.

The plaintiff claims that it made the repairs, and that by letter dated October 3, 1975, it informed the defendant it was ready for a reinspection. The defendant claims it never received the letter.

On March 29, 1982, the defendant repaired the plaintiff’s sidewalks and billed the plaintiff $28,246.50, which the plaintiff paid under protest on or about December 30, 1982. Approximately one year later, the plaintiff commenced this action, claiming, among other things, that the defendant repaired its sidewalks without first providing it with the required notice that the sidewalks were in need of repair. Upon the defendant’s motion, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint.

A proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 is the appropriate vehicle for seeking judicial scrutiny of administrative implementation of legislatively-imposed duties *(see, Matter of Town of Arietta v State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment,*56 NY2d 356, 362). Since this case is essentially one which seeks to test the validity of the 1982 administrative determination made by the defendant to repair the plaintiff’s sidewalks pursuant to statutorily-granted authority, the action is time-barred pursuant to the four-month limitations period under CPLR 217 *(see, Lily Pond Enters. v City of New York,*149 AD2d 412).

In view of the above disposition, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Harwood, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                 DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                        1,428,095
<SECURITIES>                  5,591,272
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,626,756
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                   4,674,082
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             14,017,269<F1>
<PP&E>                        1,247,933
<DEPRECIATION>                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               15,465,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         2,982,609
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                          5,566
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                  12,332,356<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 15,465,763
<SALES>                      18,237,149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             18,237,149
<CGS>                         8,841,122
<TOTAL-COSTS>                11,231,719
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                487,723
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (1,347,969)
<INCOME-TAX>                       49,943
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (1,397,912)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (0.25)
<FN>
<F1> Includes Currents Assets $13,320,205; Prepaid expenses and other
current assets $697,064.
<F2> Includes Paid in Capital $13,719,069; Accumulated Deficit $<1,157,213>;
and deferred compensation $<229,500>.
</FN>


</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1843 

To provide increased penalties for health care fraud. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 22, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide increased penalties for health care fraud. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening En5 forcement for Health Care Fraud Crimes Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HEALTH CARE FRAUD. 

7 Section 1347 of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘Whoever’’ and inserting the fol10 lowing: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1843 IS

1 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any per2 son, in connection with the delivery of or payment for 

3 health care benefits, items, or services, to’’; 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘executes, or attempts’’ and in5 serting ‘‘execute, or attempt’’; 

6 (3) in subsection (a)(2), as so designated, by 

7 striking ‘‘program,’’ and inserting ‘‘program.’’; and 

8 (4) in the matter following subsection (a)(2), as 

9 so designated, by striking ‘‘in connection with the 

10 delivery’’ and all that follows and inserting the fol11 lowing: 

12 ‘‘(b) PENALTIES.— 

13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

14 whoever violates subsection (a)— 

15 ‘‘(A) shall be fined under this title, impris16 oned for not more than 10 years, or both; 

17 ‘‘(B) if the violation results in serious bod18 ily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this 

19 title), shall be fined under this title, imprisoned 

20 for not more than 20 years, or both; and 

21 ‘‘(C) if the violation results in death, shall 

22 be fined under this title, imprisoned for any 

23 term of years or for life, or both. 

24 ‘‘(2) MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCING.—In 

25 imposing a sentence under paragraph (1), if the vioVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:21 Oct 23, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1843.IS S1843

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1843 IS

1 lation of subsection (a) involves a loss of not less 

2 than $100,000, the defendant shall be imprisoned 

3 for not less than 6 months.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
Re: Questions on I540 project 

Ryan F. Brown 

to: 

Jesse Pritts 

05/16/2011 10:20 PM 

Show Details 

History: This message has been replied to. 

Hey Jesse, 

Ive put together a word document similarly to the last ones. 

Its no problem, let me know if you need anything else! 

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:37 PM, <Pritts.Jesse@epamail.epa.gov> wrote: 

Thanks Ryan. Sorry for all the back and forth - but did either the 

9/29/2010, 10/14/2010 or 12/1/2010 sampling events span more than one 

calendar day, or were all samples collected during one calendar day? If 

the samples collected at either the Basin 3 OUT or Basin 4 OUT locations 

spans more than one calendar day for any of these three events, could 

you send the detailed sample collection times and turbidity values for 

these events at these locations as well? 

From: "Ryan F. Brown" <ryanfbrown@gmail.com> 

To: Jesse Pritts/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 05/16/2011 12:58 PM 

Subject: Re: Questions on I540 project 

Hey Jesse, 

Ive attached a file (Nov 16-17 Summary of Samples I540 NCDOT.docx) 

similarly as before with all of the information you wanted. I assumed 

you wanted both the inlet and outlet information on both basins. 

Also, if the question comes up, there are more times the samplers on the 

inlet and outlet of basin 3 tried to take samples than what was actually 

obtained physically. This was more than likely due to low flows during 

these times and there not being enough of a pool for the sampler to 

purge from. 

Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks! 

Page 1 of 4

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jpritts\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web5881.htm 5/23/2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Jose Marini, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), dated May 22, 1990, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings.

The defendant was indicted on charges of (1) manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]), (2) leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [2]), and (3) operating a motor vehicle while his ability to operate it was impaired by the use of alcohol (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]). On motion by the defendant, the County Court dismissed the first count of the indictment on the basis that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was legally insufficient *(see,*CPL 210.20 [1] [b]). The County Court dismissed the remaining counts of the indictment on the basis that the "integrity” of the Grand Jury proceedings had been "impaired” *(see,*CPL 210.20 [1] [c]; 210.35 [5]).

The County Court not only dismissed the first count of the indictment which charged the defendant with manslaughter in the second degree, but it also determined that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide *(see,*Penal Law § 125.10). We note that, under current law, if a court determines that a lesser offense is supported by legally sufficient evidence, it has the authority to direct that the count of the indictment be amended so as to charge the lesser offense *(see,*CPL 210.20 [1] [b]; [1-a], as amended by L 1990, ch 209).

Upon our review of the Grand Jury minutes, we conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the charge of manslaughter in the second degree *(see generally, People v Montanez,*41 NY2d 53; *People v Marchese,*158 AD2d 473; *People v Battease,*124 AD2d 807; *People v Puma,*97 AD2d 740). We also find that the prosecutor’s introduction of evidence that the defendant had been driving his vehicle with a suspended license and that his vehicle had stolen license *743plates did not impair the integrity of the proceeding *(see, People v Darby,*75 NY2d 449; *People v Calbud, Inc.,*49 NY2d 389).

The order under review should, therefore, be reversed, and the indictment should be reinstated. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.