alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 22000D1123(06) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22000D1123(06)

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 81/1999 of 25 June 1999 amending Annex VI (Social security) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 296 , 23/11/2000 P. 0037 - 0038 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 81/1999

of 25 June 1999

amending Annex VI (Social security) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex VI to the Agreement was amended by Decision No 34/1999 of the EEA Joint Committee of 26 March 1999(1).

(2) Decision No 170 of 11 June 1998 amending Decision No 141 of 17 October 1989, concerning the compilation of the lists provided for in Articles 94(4) and 95(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972(2), adopted by the Administrative Commission on social security for migrant workers and which replaces Decision No 141, is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Annex VI to the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

1. The text of point 3.32 (Decision No 141) shall be deleted.

2. The following point shall be inserted after point 3.50 (Decision No 169): "3.51. 398 D 0565: Decision No 170 of 11 June 1998 amending Decision No 141 of 17 October 1989, concerning the compilation of the lists provided for in Articles 94(4) and 95(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 (OJ L 275, 10.10.1998, p. 40)."

Article 2

The texts of Decision No 170 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, which are annexed to the respective language versions of this Decision, are authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 26 June 1999, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee.

It shall apply from 1 January 1998.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 25 June 1999.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

F. Barbaso

(1) OJ L 266, 9.10.2000.

(2) OJ L 275, 10.10.1998, p. 40.
# C_2016202EN.01005301.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/53

---

Article 11

(ex Article 6 TEC)

(ex Article 6 TEC)

Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union's policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development.

---
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART FIVE

THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION

THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION

TITLE VI

THE UNION'S RELATIONS WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND THIRD COUNTRIES AND UNION DELEGATIONS

THE UNION'S RELATIONS WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND THIRD COUNTRIES AND UNION DELEGATIONS

Article 221

1.   Union delegations in third countries and at international organisations shall represent the Union.

2.   Union delegations shall be placed under the authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. They shall act in close cooperation with Member States' diplomatic and consular missions.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1424 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1424

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure the Secretary of 
  Veterans Affairs permits the display of Fallen Soldier Displays in 
                          national cemeteries.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fallen Warrior Battlefield Cross 
Memorial Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR FALLEN SOLDIER DISPLAYS IN NATIONAL 
              CEMETERIES.

    Section 2403 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d)(1) Subject to standards established by the Secretary, the 
Secretary shall permit the display of a Fallen Soldier Display in any 
national cemetery.
    ``(2) In this subsection, the term `Fallen Soldier Display' means a 
memorial monument in honor of fallen members of the Armed Forces that 
may include a replica of an inverted rifle, boots, helmets, and 
identification tag.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 12, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1424

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure the Secretary of 
  Veterans Affairs permits the display of Fallen Soldier Displays in 
                          national cemeteries.
```
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 19, 2015

TO: EPA Region 9 Rulemaking File for the BAAQMD NSR SIP Submittal

FROM: Gerardo C. Rios, Chief 

EPA Region 9, Air Division, Permits Office

SUBJECT: October 19, 2015 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 

(CAPCOA) Engineering Managers Meeting Discussion regarding the EPA 

Proposed Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of Regulation 2, Rules 1 & 

2

ATTENDEES

• California Air Pollution Control Officers, including BAAQMD 

• Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, Air Division

SUMMARY

On October 19, 2015, I participated in a CAPCOA Engineering Managers Meeting where 

representatives of BAAQMD discussed four disapproval issues proposed in our limited approval 

disapproval action. BAAQMD discussed their concerns over each issue and I explained the 

rationale for EPA’s position on each of the issues. CAPCOA Engineering Managers 

participating in the discussion asked clarifying questions to BAAQMD and EPA.

ATTACHMENTS

• None
[No. 37946.

Department Two.

June 24, 1965.]

#### J. P. Tonkoff, *Appellant,*v. Rose Coscia *et al., Respondents.*
      ***

J. P. *Tonkoff,*pro se.

*G.*E. *Clark,*for respondents.

Reported in 403 P.2d 668.

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover the balance due upon a loan.

Defendants admitted the loan and affirmatively alleged that plaintiff, by written instrument, forgave the balance due and made a gift thereof sometime prior to the institution of this action. Plaintiff denied the affirmative defense and asserted that the written document purporting to forgive the indebtedness was involuntary and without intent to make a gift.

■ The evidence upon the crucial issue was in conflict. The trial court adjudged that plaintiff voluntarily and intentionally made a gift of the unpaid balance. Plaintiff’s claim was accordingly dismissed.

On appeal, plaintiff challenges the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as they relate to the interpretation, intent, and voluntariness of the written instrument in question. In essence, plaintiff contends that the trial court’s finding of the elements of a gift is not supported by the requisite quantum of proof and that the trial court incorrectly construed the written document.

No useful purpose would be served by detailing the discordant testimony, and no precedent would be established by reciting the law relating to *inter vivos*gifts. Suffice it to say that we have carefully reviewed the evidence and the contentions of plaintiff with respect thereto, and are satisfied that the evidence supports the findings and that the findings in turn support the conclusions of law. Under such circumstances, we will not disturb the judgment. *Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc.,*54 Wn.2d 570, 343 P.2d 183 (1959); *Bland v. Mentor,*63 Wn.2d 150, 385 P.2d 727 (1963); *Macchia v. Salvino,*64 Wn.2d 951, 395 P.2d 177 (1964); *Western Properties, Inc. v. Barksdale,*65 W.D.2d 592, 399 P.2d 16 (1965).

The judgment is affirmed.
June 26, 2015

Mr. Sean Finnerty Hamptons Aerial Photography

5 Gracewood Ct. Hampton Bays, NY 11946

Dear Mr. Finnerty:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 10, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 0589), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



                Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant To
                  Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

I, Paul A. Ormond, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Manor
Care, Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:

     (1)  The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
          June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
          the date hereof (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/ Paul A. Ormond

Paul A. Ormond
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2002
























                                       25
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION, INCLUDED
IN THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      255,669
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,444
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          24,606
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        13,662
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 296,381
<COMMON>                                        10,787
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       93,438
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              4,901
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 109,126
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,851
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           101,850
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  78,554
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  296,381
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      127,665
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,606
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     115,700
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     115,700
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         11,965
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   2
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  11,967
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         7,349
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,012
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        393
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    2,619
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         7,015
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          39,230
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

</TABLE>
#### Janice Marie ESCOBEDO, Appellant (Defendant below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below). Victor Lee ESCOBEDO, Jr., Appellant (Defendant below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

Nos. 4887, 4888.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 7, 1978.

Charles R. Spratt, Buffalo, for appellant.

V. Frank Mendicino, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., Allen C. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Laurie Mansfield, Legal Intern, Cheyenne; and Willis C. Geer, Campbell County Atty., Gillette, for appel-lee.

Before GUTHRIE, C. J., and McCLIN-TOCK, RAPER, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Victor Lee and Janice Marie Escobedo, were tried jointly and convicted of the delivery of amphetamines in violation of § 35 347.31(a)(i), W.S.1957, 1975 Cum.Supp., and appeal from the judgment and sentence is pursued. The sole question raised by appellants is set out in their brief as follows:

> “PREJUDICIAL ERROR OCCURRED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE STATE’S EXHIBIT NO. 1 OVER THE OBJECTION THAT A CHAIN OF CUSTODY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.”

The exhibit to which this complaint is directed is a small packet containing a substance identified as amphetamines, which was delivered to Officer Rosa, an undercover agent, at the home of defendants.

After the purchase, he put the packet in his pocket. Sometime later, when he returned to his home, he opened the packet and rewrapped it. He then placed it in a dresser drawer. The next day he delivered the packet to Detective Lewis, who took it *656to headquarters for a test. Officer Rosa testified as to the identity of this packet. There is no evidence of tampering or alteration of this sample — only appellants’ speculation and conjecture that this could or might have happened.

Under the factual situation framed by this appeal, we find that all issues and contentions raised have been decided by this court in *DeLuna v. State,*Wyo., 501 P.2d 1021, and we must therefore affirm.

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9688]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, April 25, 2012; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered: 

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: April 18, 2012.
Todd A Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9688 Filed 4-18-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
# C_2016203EN.01003801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/38

---

Article 102

Agreements or contracts concluded with a third State, an international organisation or a national of a third State to which, in addition to the Community, one or more Member States are parties, shall not enter into force until the Commission has been notified by all the Member States concerned that those agreements or contracts have become applicable in accordance with the provisions of their respective national laws.

---
# C_2016202EN.01008201.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/82

---

Article 86

1.   In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, the Council, by means of regulations adopted in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

In the absence of unanimity in the Council, a group of at least nine Member States may request that the draft regulation be referred to the European Council. In that case, the procedure in the Council shall be suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council for adoption.

Within the same timeframe, in case of disagreement, and if at least nine Member States wish to establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft regulation concerned, they shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly. In such a case, the authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 20(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 329(1) of this Treaty shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced cooperation shall apply.

2.   The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union's financial interests, as determined by the regulation provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences.

3.   The regulations referred to in paragraph 1 shall determine the general rules applicable to the European Public Prosecutor's Office, the conditions governing the performance of its functions, the rules of procedure applicable to its activities, as well as those governing the admissibility of evidence, and the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural measures taken by it in the performance of its functions.

4.   The European Council may, at the same time or subsequently, adopt a decision amending paragraph 1 in order to extend the powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to include serious crime having a cross-border dimension and amending accordingly paragraph 2 as regards the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, serious crimes affecting more than one Member State. The European Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament and after consulting the Commission.

---
AFS-13-392-E

July 14, 2013

 Exemption No. 10361A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0794

Mr. Troy Stockstad

Parent of Sonja Stockstad

726 North Tamarisk Street

Chandler, AZ 85224

Dear Mr. Stockstad:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10361. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received May 29, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Sonja Stockstad for an extension of Exemption No. 10361. That exemption from 

§ 121.311(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows Sonja Stockstad to 

exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, 

manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard 

an aircraft.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Sonja Stockstad.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10361

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Any air carrier or 

commercial operator operating under part 121 while Sonja is aboard its aircraft is granted an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary to allow her to use an FAAapproved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft. 

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Sonja’s parents or 

a caregiver accompanying her. Sonja Stockard may only occupy a passenger seat with no 

passenger seated behind her. In addition, Sonja’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this 

exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours 

before the date of each flight.

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions 

and limitations.

This exemption terminates on September 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,