alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Served: December 29, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

NOTICE

Japan Charter Authorizations

(January 1 – December 31, 2012)

Under the terms of the 2010 U.S.-Japan Memorandum of Understanding (2010 MOU), U.S. 

carriers may operate an unlimited number of one-way charter flights (hereinafter we refer to 

“one-way charters” simply as “charters”) between the United States and Japan , subject to the 

limitation that no more than six hundred (600) charters may operate to or from Tokyo’s 

Haneda Airport per year. As a result of the 2010 MOU, U.S. carriers now only require a 

Notice of Consistency from the Department when operating charters between the United 

States and Haneda.

1

 

We have determined that the demand for U.S.-Haneda charters for the 2012 calendar year

(January 1-December 31, 2012) can continue to be met by using the U.S.-Tokyo charter 

allocation procedures that were implemented for the 2008 calendar year and have remained in 

place for subsequent calendar years. Specifically, U.S.-Haneda charters will be available to 

U.S. carriers for distribution for the 2012 calendar year on a first-come, first-served basis 

subject to the following procedures and conditions:

2

1. Applications to operate U.S.-Haneda charters may be filed no earlier than 120 days in 

advance of the flight date.

3 For the period January 1 through October 31, 2012, 

carriers may apply for up to 50 charters per month. After October 31, 2012, no 

restrictions apply on the number of charters that may be applied for each month;

2. Applications must identify the type of charter (passenger or cargo); the date of each 

one-way flight; the charterer(s); the city-pair markets involved by direction; the type 

 1 This does not relieve U.S. carriers from the requirement to obtain proper authorization for all U.S.-Japan 

charters from the Japan Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT). 2 We note that on December 1, 2011, we issued a Notice of Consistency for 126 one-way passenger charters to 

Delta Air Lines. This leaves 474 charters remaining for 2012. 3 Applications should be sent by e-mail to darren.jaffe@dot.gov, esta.rosenberg@dot.gov, and 

robert.finamore@dot.gov, or by fax to 202-366-3694.
of aircraft to be used; and (for cargo charters) the type of cargo transported. Carriers 

may be asked to provide copies of signed charter contracts; 

3. The Department will grant U.S.-Haneda charter pool allocations by providing a Notice 

of Consistency to applicant carriers;4

4. Carriers receiving a charter pool allocation shall, in writing, return any unused 

allocations to the U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division.

5

By:

Paul L. Gretch, Director

Office of International Aviation

(SEAL)

Dated: December 29, 2011

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.regulations.gov

 4 The carrier must also obtain proper authorization for its U.S.-Haneda charters from the Japan MLIT. 5 This notification must be received within two business days of the carrier’s determination that an allocated 

flight or flights will not operate.
# C_2008260EN.01000703.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2008 — General Beverage Europe B.V. v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Alba

(Case C-339/08)

(2008/C 260/12)

Language of the case: Itailan

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: General Beverage Europe B.V.

Applicant:

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Alba

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Whether the withholding tax levied on the dividend adjustment constitutes withholding tax on profits prohibited under Article 5 of Directive 90/435/EEC (1), |
| --- | --- |

1.

Whether the withholding tax levied on the dividend adjustment constitutes withholding tax on profits prohibited under Article 5 of Directive 90/435/EEC (1),

1

| 2. | Whether the protective clause referred to in Article 7(2) of that Directive applies, in particular whether Article 7(2) of Directive 435/90/EEC of 23 July 1990 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may decide not to apply the exemption referred to in Article 5(1) of the Directive in the case that the State of residence of the parent company grants the latter a tax credit by virtue of a bilateral convention. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Whether the protective clause referred to in Article 7(2) of that Directive applies, in particular whether Article 7(2) of Directive 435/90/EEC of 23 July 1990 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may decide not to apply the exemption referred to in Article 5(1) of the Directive in the case that the State of residence of the parent company grants the latter a tax credit by virtue of a bilateral convention.

---

(1)  OJ L 225, p. 6.

1

---
# C_2020297EN.01001301.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finance Court Düsseldorf — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Köln

(Case C-97/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Code - Customs declarations - Article 78 of that code - Revision of the customs declaration - Name of the declarant - Amendment of information relating to the identity of the declarant seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation - Indirect representation of the person who has obtained an import licence)

(2020/C 297/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln

Operative part of the judgment

Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities may grant an application for amendment of a customs declaration seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation between, on the one hand, a person in possession of a power of attorney who has mistakenly indicated that it was acting exclusively in its own name and on its own behalf, even though it has received such a power from the person holding the import licence, and, on the other hand, the person who has granted the power of attorney and on whose behalf the declaration has been made.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---
August 31, 2015 

Dear Mr. Thain: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA-2015-2475). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition. 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to 

proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation 

please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by 9/14/15. If we do not receive the 

information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 20(b)

                    ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


                          Officer's Certificate
                          ---------------------

     I, George E. Borst, President and Chief Executive Officer of Toyota Motor
Credit Corporation ("TMCC"), hereby certify as follows:

     (a)  a review of the activities of TMCC as Servicer under the Sales and
          Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated January 1, 2001 among
          TMCC, Toyota Motor Credit Receivables Corporation as Seller, and
          U.S. Bank as Trustee, for the period from January 1, 2001 through
          March 31, 2001 and of the performance of the Servicer under the
          Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

     (b)  to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
          fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement throughout such
          period.



Date:  May 10, 2001                           /S/ GEORGE E. BORST
                                        ------------------------------------
                                                  George E. Borst
                                                   President and
                                              Chief Executive Officer
#### E. J. BURKE, Plaintiff In Error, v. Rufus HARDIN, Minnie Cox and Alma Cox, Defendants in Error.

No. 37475.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 25, 1957.

*1099Roy Frye, Sr., Roy Frye, Jr., Sallisaw, for plaintiff in error.

J. Fred Green, Fred D. Green, W. S. Agent, Sallisaw, for defendants in error.

CORN, Vice Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered upon a jury verdict, in the fourth successive case tried (November 30, 1955) against the defendant at the same term of court, and involved the same issues as Burke v. McKenzie, Okl., 313 P.2d 1090.

Only one of the twelve jurors empaneled to try the cause had not sat in a previous case. Of the remaining jurors two had sat in one of the other cases, three had signed verdicts in two cases, and the other six had participated in all three cases which had been tried. The decisive question in this appeal is controlled by our decision in Burke v. McKenzie, supra.

The judgment ' accordingly is reversed and the cause remanded for new trial.
# C_2010161EN.01000602.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords — United Kingdom) — The Queen, M and Others v Her Majesty’s Treasury

(Case C-340/08) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Article 2(2) - Prohibition of making funds available to the persons listed in Annex I to that regulation - Scope - Social security and social assistance benefits paid to the spouse of a person included in Annex I)

(2010/C 161/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

House of Lords

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen, M and Others

Defendant: Her Majesty’s Treasury

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Interpretation of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9) — Scope of the prohibition on making economic resources available to persons listed in Annex I — Social security or social assistance benefits provided by the State to such a person's spouse

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 561/2003 of 27 March 2003, must be construed as not applying to the provision by the State of social security or social assistance benefits to the spouse of a person designated by the committee created pursuant to Paragraph 6 of Resolution 1267 (1999) of the Security Council of the United Nations and included in the list in Annex I to that regulation, as amended, on the grounds only that the spouse lives with that person and will or may use some of those payments to pay for goods and services which the designated person also will consume or from which he also will benefit.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Percival Thomas, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.), rendered December 9, 1988, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We conclude that the hearing court properly denied suppression of the complainant’s testimony regarding the showup identification conducted at the hospital where he was being treated for a stab wound to the face. The complainant sustained that injury in the course of the commission of the crime of which the defendant stands convicted. The police officers, who did not know the extent or the seriousness of the complainant’s injuries, were justified in conducting a showup at the hospital a short time after the crime occurred in the interest of obtaining a prompt and reliable identification and securing the release of a possibly innocent suspect *(see, People v Whitney,*158 AD2d 734; *People v McLamb,*140 AD2d 717; *People v Castillo,*123 AD2d 878). In light of the strength of the complainant’s recollection and the promptness of the showup, the display to the complainant of the defendant, while handcuffed and in the company of two police officers, did not render the hospital showup identification impermissibly suggestive *(see, People v Whitney, supra; People v McLamb,*
      *189
      *supra; People v Capehart,*151 AD2d 592; *People v Thompson,*129 AD2d 655; *People v Moya,*115 AD2d 769).

The hearing court also properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the knife seized from his person. The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the defendant’s sister, who lived with him, had apparent authority to consent and did, in fact, consent to the entry of the police officers into the house and the basement where the defendant was hiding *(see, People v Adams,*53 NY2d 1, 8-9, *cert denied*454 US 854; *People v Cosme,*48 NY2d 286, 290; *People v Snow,*128 AD2d 564). Upon observing, in plain view, the defendant’s blue suede jacket and brown cap, which matched the complainant’s detailed description of the clothes worn by the perpetrator, the officers had probable cause to effectuate the arrest *(see, People v Monson,*151 AD2d 615; *People v Messam,*112 AD2d 449) and to conduct the search which produced the knife *(see, People v Landy,*59 NY2d 369). Kunzeman, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          76
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,372
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,870
<PP&E>                                      14,696
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,210
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,868
<COMMON>                                    20,259
<OTHER-SE>                                 (35,891)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,649
<SALES>                                      1,722
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,747
<CGS>                                        1,455
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,986
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            19,127
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            11,358
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (18,398)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (18,398)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (18,398)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (1.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (1.79)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12.2



1350 CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Mark E. Jones, III, the Chief Executive Officer (and principal financial officer) of Brazauro Resources Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



The Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the period ended January 31, 2007, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report





|Dated:  May 24, 2007 | /s/ Mark E. Jones, IIIMark E. Jones, IIIChief Executive Officer (and principal financial officer)
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------









---
EMTS Gallons Generation in 2012

Click the columns to view a specific fuel type. Click a column to return to all fuel types.

65 million

Gallons

78 million

Gallons

108 million

Gallons 99 million

Gallons

121 million

Gallons

118 million

Gallons 109 million

Gallons

105 million

Gallons

97 million

Gallons

99 million

Gallons

83 million

Gallons

65 million

Gallons

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

0M

25M

50M

75M

100M

125M

150M

T otal Gallons Generated

Biomass Based Diesel
ex_10-3.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing






LOAN
AGREEMENT


This Agreement made on August 5, 2016


This Agreement comes into force August 5,
2016


 


This
Loan Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made between of the first part Ferd,
located at Via Amerigo Vespucci 19, Int. 6, 30173 Venice,
Italy (the “Company”) and of the second part Leonid
Skupchenko, located at Via
Amerigo Vespucci 19, Int. 6, 30173 Venice, Italy (“Director”).


In
respect that:


(1)  The
Company requires funding in connection with business operations;


(2)  Director
has agreed to loan $50,000 (the “Loan Amount”) to the Company, on certain terms
and conditions contained herein;


Now
therefore this agreement witnesses:


In
consideration if the Company needs more than Fifty Thousand (50,000)
US Dollars from Director, this Agreement become useful. The parties hereto
agree as follows:


Director
hereby has agreed to loan the Loan Amount to the Company in the event of not
raising sufficient amount of funds from the offering in accordance to the Form
S-1 registration statement of the Company;


Director
hereby agrees to loan the Loan Amount to the Company on demand of the Company;


The
Company will conduct the repayments of all amount of Director’s loan
accordingly to the sequence of loans;


Director
will be repaid from revenues of the Company, when it starts earn significant
revenues;


Advanced
Loan funds are non-interest bearing, secured and payable upon demand;


Any
additional funds that Director loans to the Company subsequent to this
Agreement are subject to the same terms as this Agreement, unless otherwise
agreed in writing.


In
witness whereof:


The
parties hereto have agreed to the terms above, and the Agreement becomes
affective in the day and year first above written. 


Date: August
5, 2016


Authorized
Signature /s/ Leonid Skupchenko 


Leonid Skupchenko


President
of Ferd
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28147]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket No.: ED-2023-SCC-0214]


Evaluation of Full-Service Community Schools; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Education (ED), Institute of Education Sciences 
(IES).

ACTION: Correction notice.

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

SUMMARY: On December 18, 2023, the U.S. Department of Education 
published a 60-day comment period notice in the Federal Register with 
FR DOC# 2023-27726 (Page 87416, Column 3, Page 87417, Column 1, Column 
2) seeking public comment for an information collection entitled, 
``Evaluation of Full-Service Community Schools''. The docket number is 
incorrect. The correct docket number is ED-2023-SCC-0214.
    The PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance, Office of 
the Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 
Development, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    Dated: December 18, 2023.
Juliana Pearson,
PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance, Office of the 
Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 
Development.
[FR Doc. 2023-28147 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Bing Yeh, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K/A of Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

Date: April 29, 2008 

 

 
|   | /s/ BING YEH                            |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Bing Yeh                                |
|   | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----