alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2006192EN.01001401.xml

| 13.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 192/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 192/14

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1061/2006

of 12 July 2006

fixing a single allocation coefficient to be applied to the tariff quota for maize under Regulation (EC) No 958/2003

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),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2003 of 3 June 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Decision 2003/286/EC as regards the concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas on certain cereal products originating in the Republic of Bulgaria and amending Regulation (EC) No 2809/2000 (2), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 958/2003 has opened an annual tariff quota of 104 000 tonnes of maize (serial number 09.4677) for 2006/07. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 958/2003 has opened an annual tariff quota of 104 000 tonnes of maize (serial number 09.4677) for 2006/07.

| (2) | The quantities applied for on Monday 10 July 2006 in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2003 exceed the quantities available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined and a single allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The quantities applied for on Monday 10 July 2006 in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2003 exceed the quantities available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined and a single allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Each application for an import licence in respect of the ‘Republic of Bulgaria’ quota for maize lodged and sent to the Commission on Monday 10 July 2006 in accordance with Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2003 shall be accepted at a rate of 1,612903 % of the quantities applied for.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 July 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(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 136, 4.6.2003, p. 3. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1023/2006 (OJ L 184, 6.7.2006, p. 5).

2

---
##### 



Exhibit 10.12
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
THIRD SUPPLEMENT TO THE MASTER LOAN AGREEMENT
(TERM LOAN)
 Amendment US BIO ALBERT CITY, LLC Borrower AGSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, PCA Lender
 RECITALS
 MLA First
Supplement Second Supplement Third Supplement Fourth Supplement Loan Agreement
   AGREEMENT




---



##### 



Amendment to Third Supplement .
 Excess Cash Flow . Excess Cash Flow Payment Maximum
Excess Cash Flow Payment
 Conditions to Effectiveness of this Amendment .




---



##### 



Representations and Warranties .
   Miscellaneous .
 Effect; Ratification
 Loan Documents
 Counterparts
 Severability
 GOVERNING LAW
 WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL




---



##### 



AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
THIRD SUPPLEMENT TO THE MASTER LOAN AGREEMENT
(TERM LOAN)
 
   BORROWER:US BIO ALBERT CITY, LLC,an Iowa limited liability companyBy:
    
    /s/ Kelly S. Langley

      Kelly S. LangleyIts: TreasurerLENDER:AGSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, PCA,a United States corporationBy:
    
    /s/ Mark Schmidt

      Mark SchmidtIts: Vice President




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 CONSENT AND REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY
    US BIOENERGY CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Kelly S. LangleyName: Kelly S. LangleyIts: Treasurer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 of Wallace Mountain Resources Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
Gelfand, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
31st day of July, 2006.


/s/ Robert Gelfand
-------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 25, 2021

NO. 03-21-00217-CV

Atelier Domingue, LLC, Appellant

v.

Signature HLP d/b/a Signature Homes, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, TRIANA, AND KELLY

VACATED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on April 5, 2021. The parties have

filed a joint motion to set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and 

remand the case to the trial court, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the 

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion; sets aside the trial court’s 

judgment without regard to the merits; and remands this case to the trial court for rendition of 

judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. Appellant shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
Good mcJming, 

• 

my name Is 

Ericua TI1omas. I 

am from· St. 

Gabriel, LA, I 

am 26 years old, 

I was bot·n with 

congenit-al 
glaucoma, and I 

with the 

Louisian,a 

Democra cy 

Project. I am 

here today to 

support the 

proposed. oil 
I 

refinery fule 

' 

changes, · and to I 

remind the EPA . 

that, bey~nd the 

fencelines, there 

are many small 

communities like 

St. Gabriel along 
the Mississippi 

River that are at 

the mercy of the 

chemical plants. 

We need': to be 

informed, we 

need to be 

empowei--ed, and 

! 

j 

' 
i 

we need to be 

protected. Thank 

you for giving 

me this 

opportun.i ty to 

speak. 

ma 

would like from the Baton Rouge,LA area, and IT am from Baton Rouge LA. I stand before 

you today to talk about the importance of the proy.10sed refinery rules. 

I am so happy that you are putting these 4 rules ir:· place and I would like to encourage you on 

the first rule Fenceline monitoring. My mother was born in Saint Gabriel Louisiana a once 

beautiful farming community now lined with chemical plants all the way to Gismar. Before I 

was born many of the women of that small area had an outstanding number of miscarriages. 

Eventually a study was done but they said it was unrelated. 

once I was born in 1988 with congenital glaucoma. 
Now I live in Baton Rouge the home of Exxon Refinery. 

One of my concerns about exxon mobil oil is its uses of benzene benzene is a harmful chemical 

use in gasoline and can cause serious health proclems this breathing in air containing benzene. 

Benzene can also be absorbed through the skin d1Jring contact with a source such as gasoline, 

but because liquid benzene evaporates quickly, this is less common, although these have 

decreased greatly over the last several decades due to federal and state regulations enclosing I 

think we should follow the state and federal regulations and not take the regulations for granted 

although we have gotten better with decreasing the use of benzene we still need to focus on 

how to use less of it
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 (0.45 MB)

Tags:Defense Logisitcs Agency Troop Support, TROOP SUPPORT, Department of Defense, DoD, People and Culture, DLA Troop Support, Defense Logistics Agency, Holiday Season

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A2031. WASEEM DAKER v. TIMOTHY WARD, COMMISSIONER,

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

WaseemDaker hasfiled an original mandamus action in thisCourt, asking this

Court to compel the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections to

provide him copies of his inmate account statement and access to photocopying for

filing a civil action against the Department of Corrections in the superior court.

1 This

case is not, however, subject to original mandamus relief by our Court.

Appellate courts have mandamus authority in aid of their jurisdiction, see Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. IV, but the need to resort to the appellate courts

for such relief is “extremely rare” because “the superior courts of this state have the

power, in proper cases, to issue process in the nature of mandamus, prohibition,

specific performance, quo warranto, and injunction.” Brown v. Johnson, 251 Ga. 436,

436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983). Moreover, mandamus will issue “only if (1) no other

adequate legal remedy is available to effectuate the relief sought; and (2) the

applicant has a clear legal right to such relief.” Bibb County v. Monroe County, 294

Ga. 730, 734 (2) (755 SE2d 760) (2014).

Thisis not one of the extremely rare instancesin which this Court will exercise

original mandamus jurisdiction. See Gay v. Owens, 292 Ga. 480, 482-483 (2) (738

1 Daker attempted to file a civil complaint against the Department of

Corrections regarding the taking of some of his personal belongings. The trial court

denied the filing, in part, because Daker failed to provide a copy of his inmate

accountstatement. Daker filed an application for discretionary appealfromthat order,

which this Court denied. See Case No. A20D0411 (denied July 16, 2020)

August 10, 2020
SE2d 614) (2013). Until Daker has pursued mandamus relief in superior court and

obtained a ruling thereon, there is no basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction. See

Brown, 251 Ga. at 436-437. Accordingly, this petition for a writ of mandamus is

hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/10/2020
Exhibit 32
  Residential
    Capital, LLC
  Certification
    of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
    Officer
    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  Form 10-Q
  1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of
    section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934; and2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of
    operations of the Company.   Thomas
    F. Marano
       James
    N. Young
      A signed original of this written statement required by
    Section 906, or other document authenticating,
    acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
    in typed form within the electronic version of this written
    statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
    Residential Capital, LLC and will be furnished to the Securities
    and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to MHM Technologies, LLC a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the United States, the Government-owned invention described in U.S. Patent application 12/793,503 (Navy Case 100,000): Filed June 3, 2010, entitled “Auto Adjusting Ranging Device”.

# DATES:

Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than March 27, 2012.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Written objections are to be filed with Naval Surface Warfare Center,                               ( print page 14509)                            Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, telephone 812-854-4100.

Authority:35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

Dated: March 2, 2012.

L.M. Senay,

Lieutenant, Office of the Judge Advocate, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-5869 Filed 3-9-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
#### The STATE of Utah, By and Through UTAH STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John DICK, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 18988.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 11, 1984.

John E. Harvey, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Sandy Mooy, Deputy Co. Atty., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The parties raise a single issue in this case: whether the juvenile court or the district court has jurisdiction of an action brought under the Uniform Act on Paternity, U.C.A., 1953, § 78-45a-l *et seq.,*when the putative father is a minor.

On August 9, 1982, two days before defendant’s 16th birthday, a baby was born. The baby’s mother was also sixteen years of age. Defendant acknowledges having had sexual relations with the mother approximately nine months prior to the birth of the baby, when defendant was fifteen years of age. The State brought this action in the district court seeking to charge defendant with the costs of the pregnancy and birth, and the support for the baby. Because he is a minor, defendant moved for an order releasing jurisdiction to the juvenile court for determination of the issues. That motion was denied, and defendant filed a petition in this Court for review of the interlocutory order, which petition was granted.

Defendant contends that the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction of this matter under U.C.A., 1953, § 78-3a-16, which provides in part:

> *Except as otherwise provided by law,*the [juvenile] court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in proceedings: (1) Concerning any child who has violated any federal, state, or local law or municipal ordinance_ [Emphasis added.]

Defendant reasons that he is “charged” with violating the Uniform Act on Paternity and the juvenile court therefore has exclusive jurisdiction.

Aside from the fact that a paternity action is civil rather than criminal in nature, and defendant has not been charged with the “violation” of any law, the above-cited statute vests jurisdiction in the juvenile court only where jurisdiction is not otherwise provided by law. Jurisdiction of actions under the Uniform Act on Paternity is lodged in the district court by U.C.A., 1953, § 78-45a-5(l) which provides:

> The district court has jurisdiction of an action under this act ....

Jurisdiction is thus lodged in the district court, and the juvenile court has no power to enter an order under the Act. We find no error in the district court order denying *43defendant’s motion, and the order is affirmed. No costs awarded.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2039 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2039

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-
                         methylphenyl)proponal.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

 Mr. Menendez 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 2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-
                         methylphenyl)proponal.

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

SECTION 1. 2,2-DIMETHYL-3-(3-METHYLPHENYL)PROPONAL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.39 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-
methylphenyl)proponal) 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 10.1

                               LEASE AMENDMENT #2
                               ------------------


EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2006, the Lease dated August 25, 1999, and amended
February 23, 2004 by Lease Amendment #1, between Lomita Enterprise No. 4 LLC
(Lessor) and Hi-Shear Technology Corp., a Delaware Corp. (Lessee), for the
Premises located at 24225 Garnier Street, Torrance, California, is hereby
amended as follows:

1)       PARAGRAPH 3.1 TERM: The term of this Lease shall be extended for THREE
         (3) ADDITIONAL YEARS. The Lease shall now expire on August 31, 2012.

2)       PARAGRAPH 4, RENT; AND PARAGRAPH 70, RENT ESCALATIONS: The rent during
         the extended term shall be increased annually and paid in accordance
         with the following rent schedule:

         September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007......... $45,255.44 per month
         September 1, 2007 through August 31, 2008......... $46,583.00 per month
         September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2009......... $47,951.00 per month
         September 1, 2009 through August 31, 2010......... $49,360.00 per month
         September 1, 2010 through August 31, 2011......... $50,810.00 per month
         September 1, 2011 through August 31, 2012......... $52,304.00 per month

3)       ADDENDUM PARAGRAPH 60, LESSOR'S TENANT IMPROVEMENTS: Lessor, at
         Lessor's sole cost and expense, agrees to make the following Tenant
         Improvements:
         a)       Replace four (4) HVAC units per Rusher Air Proposal dated
                  3/23/06 per attached Exhibit "A".
         b)       Refurbishment of ten (10) Restrooms and one (1) Lunchroom
                  whose locations are depicted on Exhibit "B". Lessor shall
                  complete the Refurbishments in accordance with the
                  Refurbishment Schedule as shown on Exhibit "C".

EXCEPT FOR THE CHANGES DESCRIBED ABOVE, ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
LEASE SHALL REMAIN UNCHANGED AND IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.


LESSOR:                                     LESSEE:

LOMITA ENTERPRISES No. 4 LLC                HI-SHEAR TECHNOLOGY CORP.
a limited liability company                 a Delaware Corp.


By:  West America Construction Corp.,       By:      /s/ George W. Trahan
     Manager                                         ---------------------------
                                                     George W. Trahan, President

By:  /s/ Nicholas M. Brown                  By:      /s/ Gregory J. Smith
     ---------------------                           ---------------------------
     Nicholas M. Brown, President                    Gregory J. Smith, CFO