alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2006220EN.01000601.xml

| 11.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 220/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 220/6

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1215/2006

of 10 August 2006

on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/97 of 27 May 1997 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat (2),

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f).

| (2) | Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 at 11 500 t. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 at 11 500 t.

| (3) | It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   All applications for import licences from 1 to 5 August 2006 for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal as referred to in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 shall be granted in full.

2.   Applications for licences may be submitted, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 936/97, during the first five days of September 2006 for 2 514,507 t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 August 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 10 August 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 137, 28.5.1997, p. 10. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 408/2006 (OJ L 71, 10.3.2006, p. 3).

2

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Alicea, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obús, J.), rendered September 27, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 17 years to life and one year, respectively unanimously affirmed.

The evidence at trial shows that Stanford Hewitt and his three companions happened upon defendant, co-defendant Rivera and two others in a street encounter. Rivera challenged and then attacked Hewitt. Defendant produced a knife, and after menacing James Williams and slashing Clarence Crawford, stabbed Hewitt to death.

We find no merit to defendant’s claim on appeal that he was deprived of a fair opportunity to present his defense. The case was advanced to trial on consent, and the decision to carry the case ready and passed for several days was not an abuse of discretion *(People v Spears,*64 NY2d 698, 699-700). Counsel did not tell the court that his missing witness, who was involved with drugs and outside the jurisdiction, would give material testimony. *(Matter of Anthony M.,*63 NY2d 270, 283-284; *People v Foy,*32 NY2d 473.) Further, trial counsel did not move for an adjournment during the course of the trial or alert the court to the fact, revealed at sentencing, that the missing witness was one of the persons involved in the altercation.

Defendant’s claim that the prosecutor appealed to the jury’s passion on summation is unpreserved. Were we to reach the issue in the interest of justice, we would find it lacking in merit.

*398The issues raised in defendant’s *pro se*supplemental brief do not warrant reversal. His conviction for murder in the second degree was established beyond a reasonable doubt, and his claim that trial counsel was ineffective is not founded on matter appearing in the record on appeal. *(People v Jones,*55 NY2d 771; *People v Brown,*45 NY2d 852.) Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2174 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2174

To suspend temporarily the duty on polyoxethylene-/alkyletherphosphate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on polyoxethylene-/alkyletherphosphate.

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

SECTION 1. POLYOXETHYLENE-/ALKYLETHERPHOSPHATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Polyoxethylene-/    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        alkyletherphospha                                                  31/2011.......
                        te (CAS No. 68439-
                        39-4) (provided
                        for in subheading
                        3402.90.50)......

    (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>
```
Exhibit 10.10
 WAIVER
  ResCap GM Operating
Agreement
 Exhibit
A Model Home Transaction
 Investment in Affiliates Covenant
 Exhibit B
    1




---



##### 



RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLCBy:
    
    /s/ James G. JonesTitle:
 GMAC LLCBy:
    
    /s/ Robert S. HullTitle:
    
    CFO
 2




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
Model Home Transaction Commitment Letter
 3




---



##### 








---



##### 



first then




---



##### 



Indemnified Party




---



##### 








---



##### 



Very truly yours,
    Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.By: Accepted and Agreed:
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLCBy:




---



##### 



SCHEDULE A
 AGGREGATE NET BOOK VALUE OFASSETS HELD BYASSET
    
    THE ACQUIRED ENTITIES1All of the outstanding membership
interests in the following entities
(the Acquired Entities):
    
    $
    476,000,000(a) GMAC Model Home Finance, LLC(b) KBOne, LLC(c) LENOne, LLC(d) GMCMTH, LLC(e) WPSHOne, LLC
 
 1
    
    All Net Book Values subject to confirmation




---



##### 



EXHIBIT B
ResCap Resolutions
 4




---



##### 



Exhibit A Model Home
Transaction GMAC
  Operating Agreement Investment in Affiliates Covenant
     Authorized Persons




---



##### 



2
**Exhibit 32.2**

#### CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SafetyProducts Holdings, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended April 1, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David F. Myers, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of theRegistrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
| Dated: May 12, 2006 | By:    | /s/ DAVID F. MYERS, JR.                            |
|--------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   | David F. Myers, Jr.                           |
|                     |   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, |
|                     |   | Secretary and Director                             |
|                     |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)       |

 

**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

 

----
January 6, 2017

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Docket No. FAA-2010-1128

Endeavor Air Inc., operating under the REXA257A certificate petitions the Administrator for extension of Exemption 10184B (Docket FAA-2010-1128) in relief of 14 CFR 121.652 and due to expire on 1/31/2017.

Continued approval of this exemption will benef it the flying public by improving reliability

of air service for numerous communities served by Endeavor Air. In addition, safety will be enhanced by reducing the number of weather related diversions and their associated risk. We are not requesting changes to the existing conditions and limitations associated with this exemption

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions concerning this proposal, you may contact me at 612-801-6331.

Sincerely,

David Wilson Director, Flight Operations Endeavor Air, Inc. 7500 Airline Drive | M.S. 01P Minneapolis, MN 55450-1101

www.EndeavorAir.com
ex10-2.htm


  


    EXHIBIT
10.2

    


    


    Target
Financial Objectives for Fiscal Year 2010 under the Annual Incentive Plan and
Long Term Incentive Plan

     

    On March
29, 2010, the Committee approved weighted target financial objectives for the
Company’s 2010 Annual Incentive Plan and Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP). Awards
will be based on the target payouts set forth below, which are expressed as a
percentage of base salary. Specific payments to individuals could exceed the
following targets if the Company achieves more than 100% of its target financial
objectives, but in no event will the Annual Incentive Payment or LTIP
individually exceed two times base salary.

    


    
      	
              Title

            	 
      	
              Target Payout
      %

            
	
               

              Chief
      Executive Officer

            	
                

            	
              100

            	
              %

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              Chief
      Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of MEDTOX Laboratories,
      Inc.

            	
                

            	
              60

            	
              %

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              Vice
      President and Chief Marketing Officer

            	 
      	
              60

            	
              %

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              Vice
      President and Chief Operating Officer of MEDTOX Diagnostics,
      Inc.

            	 
      	
              60

            	
              %

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              Vice
      President Quality, Regulatory Affairs, and Human Resources

            	 
      	
              60

            	
              %

            


    

    


    Employees
must be employed by the Company as of December 31, 2010, and at the time of
the awards in order to participate in the Plans, and awards may be adjusted on a
pro rata basis to the extent any employee is employed for only a portion of the
year 2010. The Chief Executive Officer will recommend individual awards for all
participating employees (except for the Chief Executive Officer) for approval by
the Committee based on an assessment of each individual’s performance. The
Committee may approve or disapprove any recommended awards in whole or in part
in its sole discretion. The Committee shall determine the award for the Chief
Executive Officer based on an assessment of his performance for
2010.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtis Holden, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered on January 5, 1989, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing defendant as a persistent violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 6 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
# TIEEEATFOEZNEY GENERAL **OF -XAS**  Ausm~.T-R 78711
October 17. 1975
The Honorable Bevington Reed Commissioner Coordinating Board Texas College and University System P. 0. Box 12788, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Opinion No. H- 722 Re: Tuition rate for non-resident junior college students.

Dear Dr. Reed: You ask our opinion onwhether a recent amendment concerning foreign student tuition has any effect onnon-resident student tuition at public junior colleges. Prior to the amendment, public junior colleges which desired state appropriations were required to charge minimum non-resident tuition rates inaccordance with a schedule “frozen” as of January 1, 1971. Education Code $$ 54.051(j); 130. 003(b)(4). Acts 1961, 57th Leg., ch. 436, p. 999. The title to the amendment about which you inquire, Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 515, p. 1358, states inpertinent part: An Act relating to the tuition fees institutions ofhigher learning collect from students who are citizens ofany country other than the United States ofAmerica; amending Subsections (h), (i), and (p), Section 54.051 Texas Education Code, as amended. , . . The Act amends subsection (h) ofSection 54.051 inpertinent part as follows: (h) Tuition for students who are citizens ofany country other than the United States ofAmerica is the same as tuition required ofother non-resident students. However, the governing board of an institution ofhigher education may set alower fee for aforeign student, based onfinancial need.
. . . The lower fee inany case shall notbe less than $14 per semester credit hour, andthe total of such charges shall not be less than $ 200 per semester or 12week summer

ps 3092The Honorable Bevington Reed - page two (H-722)

session, and notless than $100 per 6week summer term. Your question is whether the amendment’s requirement that foreign student tuition be the same as non-resident student tuition, coupled with a minimum for lowered foreign student tuition, changes the prior minimum which public junior colleges could charge non-resident students. Neither the title nor the terms ofthe amendment makes reference to section 130. 003, nor is there any mention ofa change innon-resident tuition rates. Implied repeals are not favored under Texas Law. 53Tex. Jur. 2d Statutes §102. We donot believe the Legislature intended by this amendment toalter the minimum tuition rates which ajunior college may charge non-resident students under section 130. 003 ofthe Education Code. Inour opinion, the amendment to section 54. 051 ofthe Education Code, contained inActs 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 515, p. 1358 does not affect the minimum non-resident tuition rate for junior college students permitted under section 130. 003(b)(4). SUMMARY An amendment establishing foreign student ‘~ tuition rates does not affect the minimum tuition rates ajunior college may charge non-resident students.

# v Attorney General ofTexas

=A irst Assistant

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee jad:

p. 3093
$,XED ssp 

2 A e*5 

$ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

f P REGION IX 

+'4'41 pROXtG 75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

December 14, 2010 

William D. Wiley, P.E. 

Maricopa County Air Quality Department 

1 00 1 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 

Dear 

We received the Maricopa County Air Quality Department's October 7,20 10, 

request for delegation of Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) 

and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) pursuant to 

the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 (40 CFR), Parts 60, 61, and 63. In this letter, 

we are responding only to your requests for delegation of 40 CFR Part 63 NESHAP. 

You will receive a separate letter addressing delegation of 40 CFR Part 60 NSPS and Part 

61 NESHAP. 

In response to your request, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

IX, (EPA) hereby grants to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department formal 

delegation of .the following 40 CFR Part 63 NESHAP, as they existed on July 1,2009: 

Subpart WWWWWW - NESHAP: Area Source Standards for Plating and Polishing 

Operations 

Subpart XXXXXX - NESHAP Area Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and 

Finishing Source Categories 

Subpart YYYYYY - NESHAP for Area Sources: Ferroalloys Production Facilities 

Subpart ZZZZZZ - NESHAP: Area Source Standards for Aluminum, Copper, and Other 

Nonferrous Foundries 

Regarding any other 40 CFR Part 63 NESHAP previously delegated to Maricopa 

County, this letter is also delegating any amendments made to those NESHAP as of July 

1,2009. These NESHAP are being delegated in accordance with the November 1, 1999, 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Maricopa County and EPA regarding the 

delegation of NESHAP. As set forth in the MOA, these delegations are effective upon 

the date of this letter and EPA will publish a future Federal Register notice to codify 

these delegations into the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
We appreciate the Maricopa County Air Quality Department's efforts to 

implement the federal air toxics program and hope to continue working with you to 

reduce emissions of air toxics in Maricopa County. If you have any questions about this 

delegation, please call me at (41 5) 947-871 5 or have your staff contact Mae Wang at 

(415) 947-4124. 

Sincerely, 

deborah Jordan / 

Director, Air Division 

cc: Jo Crumbaker, Maricopa County AQD
# L_2008202EN.01007401.xml

| 31.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 202/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 202/74

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 406 of 30 December 2006
  , as corrected by
  Official Journal of the European Union L 48 of 22 February 2008
  )

(This corrigendum cancels and replaces the corrigendum published in OJ L 48 of 22 February 2008, page 82, with regard to the following).

On page 83, Article 2(c):

for:

| ‘(c) | In small labour markets or in exceptional circumstances, where duly substantiated by the concerned, ...’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(c)

In small labour markets or in exceptional circumstances, where duly substantiated by the concerned, ...’,

read:

| ‘(c) | In small labour markets or in exceptional circumstances, where duly substantiated by the Member State(s) concerned, ...’; |
| --- | --- |

‘(c)

In small labour markets or in exceptional circumstances, where duly substantiated by the Member State(s) concerned, ...’;

on page 85, Article 9(2):

for:

‘2.   The Commission shall set up an Internet site, available in all Community languages, to proviefused applications, highlighting the role of the budgetary authority.’,

read:

‘2.   The Commission shall set up an Internet site, available in all Community languages, to provide information on the EGF, guidance on the submission of applications, as well as updated information on accepted and refused applications, highlighting the role of the budgetary authority.’

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00358-CV

George T. CHANEY and Medina County,

Appellants

v.

Simon Camacho and Felipe 

Simon CAMACHO and Felipe Camacho,

Appellees

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-03-20524-CV

Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE MARION, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. 

It is ORDERED that appellees recover their costs of appeal from George T. Chaney.

SIGNED December 11, 2013.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
# L_2007057EN.01002802.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 57/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 57/28

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2006/969/EC of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) on nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 391 of 30 December 2006
  )

The publication of the Decision in the abovementioned Official Journal is annulled.

The publication of the same text as ‘Council Decision 2006/970/EC of 18 December 2006
  ’ in OJ L 400, 30.12.2006, p. 60, remains valid.

(For technical reasons, this latter Decision has been republished in OJ L 54, 22.2.2007, p. 21.)

---