alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008209EN.01002501.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/25

---

Action brought on 29 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-232/08)

(2008/C 209/37)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and K. Banks, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by allowing fishing vessels to have a higher engine power than permitted under Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 850/98 (1), has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 2371 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (3); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by allowing fishing vessels to have a higher engine power than permitted under Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 850/98 (1), has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 2371 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (3);

1

2

3

| — | order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that the Netherlands Government has failed to fulfil its obligations, as it has consciously allows infringements of the rule regarding the maximum engine power with which fishing may be carried out in the ‘plaice box’.

First, it is apparent from the information provided by the Netherlands Government that it permits Netherlands ‘Eurokotters’ participating in the private arrangement to satisfy the maximum permitted engine power of 300 hp only with effect from 1 May 2009. Second, it is apparent from this information that when monitoring compliance with this rule a margin of tolerance of 12,5 % is applied systematically and therefore penalties are not imposed on infringements of the maximum permitted engine power within that margin.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (OJ 1998 L 125, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Regulation of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59).

2

(3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1).

3

---
# C_2008247EN.01000602.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Deutschland) lodged on 8 July 2008 — Metin Bozkurt v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-303/08)

(2008/C 247/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Metin Bozkurt

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Defendant:

Other party: Der Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Other party:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the right of residence and employment acquired as a member of the family pursuant to the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council by the spouse of a Turkish worker who is duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State retained even after a divorce?
  If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the right of residence and employment acquired as a member of the family pursuant to the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council by the spouse of a Turkish worker who is duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State retained even after a divorce?

If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative:

| 2. | Is it an abuse of rights to plead the right of residence derived from his former wife under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council where the Turkish national raped and injured his former wife after acquiring the legal status and the offence was punished with two years' imprisonment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it an abuse of rights to plead the right of residence derived from his former wife under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council where the Turkish national raped and injured his former wife after acquiring the legal status and the offence was punished with two years' imprisonment?

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
their knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2004 of Prism Software Corporation (the "COMPANY") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in such periodic report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.

Date:  March 31, 2005                       /s/ David Ayres
                                            --------------------------
                                            President

                                            /s/ Michael Cheever
                                            --------------------------
                                            Treasurer
#### J. B. LANE, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12870.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 30, 1960.

George L. Hill, McAlester, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

J. B. Lane, plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged by information filed in the county court of Pittsburg County with the crime of operating a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, was tried before a jury, convicted, and his punishment fixed by the jury at a fine of $10 and confinement in the county jail for ten days.

Appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Counsel has filed brief, and argued the case orally. We have carefully read the testimony and the instructions of the court to the jury, none of which were excepted to. Defendant was shown to be a’ substantial citizen of Pittsburg County, having a good .reputation, but was addicted to drinking at times. All of this, no doubt, was weighed carefully by the jury as *446attested by the very minimum sentence imposed.

There was a very close question as to the right of the arresting officer to stop the defendant in the first instance. Defendant was driving a Ford pick-up, loaded with watermelons, going south along U. S. Highway 69. He was driving very slowly, and a number of cars were back of him. Officer Roy McIntosh said defendant was doing quite a bit of weaving. Witness was driving north. The officer stopped defendant north of Canadian a little ways to investigate the trouble. He found defendant under the influence of intoxicants. This conclusion of the arresting officer was corroborated by Officer W. R. Livingston, who transported the defendant back to McAlester, and of the Pittsburg County jailor, Chris LeFlore.

The defense claimed that the highway was rough, and that fact, together with the heavy load of watermelons on a light pick-up, accounted for the weaving. All this, under the record in the case, was for the consideration of the jury, a motion to suppress not being involved.

As this Court has so many times said, where there is competent evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably have concluded that the defendant was guilty as charged, the Court of Criminal Appeals will not interfere with the verdict, although there may be a sharp conflict in the evidence, and different inferences might be drawn therefrom, since it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the facts. See Staley v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 394, 264 P.2d 387, and cases cited.

We are not called upon to further detail the evidence. 20 O.S.1951 § 47, as amended by laws 1953, p. 56, S.B. 450, § 2, 20 O.S.Supp. § 47; Pingleton v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 323, 262 P.2d 911.

Judgment affirmed.

BRETT, J., concurs.

NIX, J., not participating.
#### LANDRUM v. STATE.

No. A-11687.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 11, 1953.

*292S. S. Lawrence, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., James P. - Garrett, Ass’t Att’y Gen., and A. M. Widdows, City Atty., Tulsa, for defendant in error.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Preston Landrum was charged in the municipal criminal court of the city of Tulsa with the operation of. an automobile over and upon a public highway, naming it, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was tried before the court without a jury, and was found guilty and his punishment fixed at a fine of $44 and costs.

We have carefully examined the information, the evidence and the entire record in the case, as well as the briefs of the attorneys, and find no substantial error. The fourth paragraph of the syllabus in McCarthy v. State, 91 Okl.Cr. 294, 218 P.2d 397, is applicable in the within case. Further treatment of the proposition argued in brief is not called for.

' Ordinarily in misdemeanor cases we are not justified by reason of the provision of Tit. 20 O.S.1951 § 47, in rendering a written opinion in such cases, although the practice has usually been otherwise by reason of the insistan ce of counsel for persons convicted of crime to have every issue they may raise treated at length, even when the principles of law involved are well settled and all that may.be involved is an application of settled law to the facts as - disclosed by the record. Thus the delays in disposition of appeals and the volume upon volume of law reports. The statute above, while requiring written opinions in felony cases, as to misdemeanors states:

> “Provided, that the court may, when in its judgment public interest may be subserved, render a written opinion in like manner in misdemeanor cases.”

This statute should be more often adhered to.

The conviction appealed from is affirmed.

JONES and BRETT, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H4916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  THE DAMAGING EFFECTS OF DEFENSE CUTS

  (Mr. PALAZZO asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, I come before you today not just as a 
Congressman from Mississippi's Fourth Congressional District, but also 
as a Marine veteran of the Persian Gulf War and the only Member of this 
body that is currently serving as a noncommissioned officer in the 
National Guard, simply to say that one of the biggest threats to our 
national security that we face as a nation is the crippling defense 
cuts that would put our men and women in uniform at physical risk and 
more than 1 million Americans out of work.
  It will harm folks like the 857th that I had the privilege to send 
off this weekend as they are about to deploy to Afghanistan, or the 
more than 170,000 warfighters from all across the United States who 
have come through the gates of Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training Center 
as part of the global war on terrorism.
  Today, once more, I join my colleagues in asking the President and 
the Senate Democrats to come to the table, consider the solutions we've 
already brought forth, or propose your own. The American people deserve 
answers on how these defense cuts will affect them, and American 
soldiers deserve leadership from their Commander in Chief.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Brad
      E. Herr, Chief Financial Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the "Company") do
      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
      knowledge:





This
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A1 of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
      March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
      "report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:August
                13, 2007/s/
                Brad E. HerrBrad
                E. HerrChief
                Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5629]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. FARENTHOLD:
       H.R. 6250.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Art 1 Sec. 8 cl.1
```
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/25 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5703-H5704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

         REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to 
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as 
follows:

       Mr. SMITH of Texas: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 5949. 
     a bill to extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five 
     years; with an amendment (Rept. 112-645, Pt. 1). Referred to 
     the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
       Mr. ROGERS of Michigan: Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence. H.R. 5949. A bill to extend the FISA Amendments 
     Act of

[[Page H5704]]

     2008 for five years; with an amendment (Rept. 112-645, Pt. 
     2). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
     of the Union.

                          ____________________
```
ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET

Attachment Number 001

Attachment Name

CAS RN 73361-29-2 Summary of Molecular Weight Distribution and Percent Monomer Composition 

Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.I, Sec.B, 2a.

Contains CBI

Report Number

 Sanitized Version
All CBI has been removed
# COVID-19 Response - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Jennifer Simon Program Manager.The post Jennifer Simon appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
## tf£.-iZ{0&&pL'V?'py' a,



### lUe. 5\<Al af "Tm< 

### [^ ^{U<l Pity,cuk \aj<t\ 

### '\K« 2*0 RltfcC Cc*yT4 

### (LktX\ LHkw MlCan/if• — RECEIVEDIRS ©^RTOFCRlMIMAlAPPEALa ' 

### NOV16'-2ob'.. • L"L/-t iuAi^iA 0«T , .Clerk \/Ooi<i\lwmbe.r ' \mwM®&gp 

### Cfa \lli- &CI Cct \.m- \kc\ •Cr* 'nft-Ht* 1 Cf( 11L0 UC\ .
' - 

## 1 • y '•' 

### tW A-cidaA Nlgifemb^iT L? 3d1<" IW IiaAim# ^r Wt-anA. f&> - 

## h tuft* StvsV h> 4-U BilLildKlA^ 1*-A, tou^f ^ ouviU. klWA (JL»\*t~ in (Qeuj liisWn ^SSLfxi> 1>a (W ht-Whoi/i for 4a.& ImC(/»<&- HWfC Ua£ <wV Ul&a fcS^crS-Wi• - • 

## : IWr uviWtf Lui Uifct^ P^ {U^t *tw$ U>ok\ l_9*3.A. t Auis kAe>1W \qX £x4£jaV&ia ©V Mn*£.

' . " ' ' 

## &4ctcdii <aU;MJ
' • . - . • 

# I 6bale«A-/p±A~. icW\ \J*a'jAthrOifMHibW •

- 

### TliWa thV\
-



### 1K<\ 54 U*H A?

KW fetfW /k '/ftK --

- ' •- - " ;

• '

.. • - .

- . • .' ,. i .-
. •..

- 

## 1 •• • • ••• •
. - > • , - ,
<PAGE>   1


                                                                 Exhibit 24.3

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned director and/or
officer of ANTEC Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), which
is about to file an annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, on Form 10-K, hereby constitutes
and appoints Lawrence A. Margolis, Mark J. Scagliuso and James E. Knox and each
of them his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power
and all capacities, to sign the Corporation's Form 10-K and any and all
amendments thereto, and any other documents in connection therewith, to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each
and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as she or he might or could do
in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact
agents or their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set his or her hand
and seal as of the 16th day of March, 1999.


                                                         /s/ BRUCE VAN WAGNER
                                                         --------------------
                                                             Bruce Van Wagner
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4429 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a rule relating to extension 

of the expiration dates for double-crested cormorant depredation orders, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2017 

Mr. BERGMAN (for himself, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. 

WESTERMAN, Mr. PETERSON, and Mr. UPTON) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a rule 

relating to extension of the expiration dates for doublecrested cormorant depredation orders, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cormorant Control 

5 Act’’. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4429 IH

1 SEC. 2. REISSUANCE OF RULE REGARDING EXTENSION OF 

2 EXPIRATION DATES FOR DOUBLE-CRESTED 

3 CORMORANT DEPREDATION ORDERS. 

4 Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the 

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 

6 shall reissue the final rule published on May 28, 2014, 

7 relating to extension of the expiration dates for double8 crested cormorant depredation orders (79 Federal Reg9 ister 30483), without regard to any other provision of stat10 ute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. 

11 Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be sub12 ject to judicial review and shall not abrogate or otherwise 

13 have any effect on the order and judgment issued by the 

14 United States District Court of the District of Columbia 

15 in Case Number 14–CV–01807–JDB on May 25, 2016. 

Æ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
#### Casket Manufacturers Assn. of America et al., Appellants, *v.*Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

(No. 32045

Decided May 31, 1950.)

*562
      *Messrs. Safer & Safer,*for appellants.

*Mr. Herbert S. Duffy,*attorney general, and *Mr. Kenneth B. Johnston,*for appellee.

By the Court.

The question presented to this court for determination is whether the order of the Public Utilities Commission is unlawful or unreasonable.

From an examination of the record, this court is of the opinion that the order of the Public Utilities Commission is not unlawful or unreasonable and is, therefore, affirmed.

*Order affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taft, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following    Registration Statements of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan    Inc.:     •     Registration Statement    No. 33-37855    on    Form S-8;    •     Registration Statement    No. 333-19215    on    Form S-8;    •     Registration Statement    No. 333-93773    on    Form S-8;    •     Registration Statement    No. 333-53531    on    Form S-8;    •     Registration Statement    No. 333-75742    on    Form S-8;    •     Registration Statement    No. 333-75744    on    Form S-8;    •     Registration Statement    No. 333-113945    on    Form S-8;    •     Registration Statement    No. 333-124677    on    Form S-8;    •     Registration Statement    No. 333-89350    on    Form S-3;    •     Registration Statement    No. 33-57920    on    Form S-3;    •     Registration Statement    No. 33-133854    on    Form S-8;    •     Registration Statement    No. 333-142615    on    Form S-8;    and    •     Registration Statement    No. 333-148023    on    Form S-3     of our reports dated February 15, 2008 relating to the    consolidated financial statements and financial statement    schedules of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and the    effectiveness of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.’s    internal control over financial reporting, (which reports    (1) express unqualified opinions on the consolidated    financial statements and financial statement schedules and which    report on the consolidated financial statements includes an    explanatory paragraph referring to the changes in the    Company’s accounting for financial instruments and for mine    stripping costs and (2) express an unqualified opinion on    the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting),    appearing in the Annual Report on    Form 10-K    of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. for the year ended    December 31, 2007.     /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP    Independent Registered Chartered Accountants    Saskatoon, Canada    February 28, 2008