alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2011161EN.01002101.xml

| 21.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 161/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/21

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 595/2011

of 20 June 2011

on the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of June 2011 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,

Whereas:

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of June 2011 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2011 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 June 2011.

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

Done at Brussels, 20 June 2011.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 47.

3

---

ANNEX

| Group No | Order No | Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.7.2011-30.9.2011
  (%) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 09.4410 | 0,413737 |
| 3 | 09.4412 | 0,438216 |
| 4 | 09.4420 | 0,491886 |
| 5 | 09.4421 | 12,658227 |
| 6 | 09.4422 | 0,510209 |

Group No

Order No

Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.7.2011-30.9.2011

(%)

1

09.4410

0,413737

3

09.4412

0,438216

4

09.4420

0,491886

5

09.4421

12,658227

6

09.4422

0,510209

---
# MDE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard • Baltimore MD 21230 410-537-3000 • 1-800-633-6101• www.mde.state.md.us
Martin O'Malley Governor Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. Anthony G. Brown Lieutenant Governor 

### DEC 2120\2 The Honorable Shawn M. Garvin Regional Administrator (3RAOO) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia PA 19103-2023 Dear Mr. Garvin: Secretary**f~ECEIVED**

EPA. REGION Ill 0 1

- :' 1Ce o ;• t - :HHDi·'i\L**t.DM !N!ST!** **~ATCF**

Pursuantto the requirements of§ 110 ofthe Clean Air Act (Act), we are officially requesting approval ofa revision to the State ofMaryland's State Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP revisionprovides a detailed listing ofthe requirements of§ 110(a)(2) ofthe Act and confirms that all implementation, maintenance, and enforcement measures are in place in Maryland for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). A public hearing for this SIP revision was held in Baltimore, Maryland on December 21, 2012. All required administrative procedures were properly followed throughout the hearing process. The electronic copy (CD) includes an exact duplicate ofthe hard copy submittal. Ifyou should have any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at ( 41 0) 537-3086 or George (Tad) Abum, Director ofthe Air and**R~diation** Management Administration at (410) 537-3255, or Ms. Diane Franks, Program Manager, Air Quality Planning Program at (410) 537- 3250 or by email at dfranks@mde.state
.md.us. · Sincerely,

Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. Secretary Enclosures cc: Diana Esher, Director, Air Protection Division, USEPA Region III George (Tad) S. Abum, Jr., Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration Diane Franks, Manager, Air Quality Plaruiing Program**~** Recycled Paper www. mde.state.md.us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258 Via Maryland Relay Service

### . ...
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-12-0351 SAT Date: 5/18/2012 Print Date: 4/27/2015

Related cases : Yes Health related cases: Ecotox related cases: Analogs: P-01-347, L-99-269.

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1 1 Health: PMN ; Eco: intact material 2 3 Health: Per-F Acid ; Eco: high concern for toxicity of incomplete inciner a p roducts to terrestrial organisms

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 1 1 PMN 3 3 2 Deg Pdt

Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: N o exposures needed for PMN substance; Drinking Water and Inhalation for the Per-F Acid Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: Per-F acid: LIVER; BLOOD; MALE REPRO; IMMUNOTOX; ONCO; AQUATOX
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-12-0351 FATE: MW = 4911 with 0.01% < 500 and 2.35% < 1000 Liquid with MP < 25 C (E) S = N egl. VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E)POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong PBT Potential: PMN P3B1; Deg Pdt P3B3 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes ( p che m ). N o significant health concerns for the PMN substance.
For the potential incomplete incineration product, based on test data for perfluorohexanoic acid concerns are liver toxicity, blood toxicity, and male reproductive toxicity [rat 28-day oral N OAEL = 50 mg/kg, LOAEL = 150 mg/kg with liver toxicity; rat 90-day oral LOAEL = 10 mg/kg based on decreased body weight in males at all doses and liver toxicity and anemia at 200 mg/kg; there were toxic effects on the testes in 2 males in the 90-day oral study that were judged by the reviewer to be indicative of the potential for male reproductive toxicity. There is also concern for immunosuppression and oncogenicity based on data for PFOA and PFOS.

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value *

algal

_ chronic value *
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions based on SARs for nonionic polymers; Ecotox chemical class: p olyme r -nonionic-siloxane- p erfluoroC6; MW 4911 with 2.35% < 1000 and 0% < 500; S < 0.001 mg/L at 20 C (P); p H 7; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; ECs based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;
high concern for the perFC6-COOH stable degradation product;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *SARs nonionic polymers SAR Class p olyme r -nonionic-siloxane- p erfl uoroC6 Ecotox Category N onionic Polymers

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
#### Ruppa, Respondent, vs. Avalon Realty Company and others, Appellants.*

*May 23*

June *22, 1946.*

For the appellants Avalon Realty Company, William C. Kirsten, J. Parish Lewis, George A. Schmitz, and Carl Ema there were briefs by *Gabel & Dineen,*attorneys, and *Brooke Tibbs*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Tibbs*and *Mr. George H. Gabel.*

*87For the appellant Abbie R. Silliman there was a brief by *Whyte, Hirschboeck & Minahan,*and oral argument by *Victor M. Harding,*all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Karon & Weinberg,*attorneys, and *Morris Karon*of counsel, all of Milwaukee; and oral argument by *Mr. Karon.*

*

 Motion for rehearing denied, with $25 costs, on September 28, 1946.

Rector, J.

The material facts are the same as in *Gottschalk v. Avalon Realty Co., ante,*p. 78, 23 N. W. (2d) 606, decided herewith, which governs the decision.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, with directions to dismiss the complaint.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 18, 2024                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 7, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 379 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-38, K2025-37.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24055 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# L_2011161EN.01001501.xml

| 21.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 161/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/15

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 592/2011

of 20 June 2011

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 June 2011.

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

Done at Brussels, 20 June 2011.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.

2

---

ANNEX

Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

| (EUR/100 kg) |
| --- |
| CN code | Third country code (1) | Standard import value |
| 0702 00 00 | MA | 57,8 |
| MK | 31,8 |
| TR | 55,0 |
| ZZ | 48,2 |
| 0707 00 05 | TR | 95,0 |
| ZZ | 95,0 |
| 0709 90 70 | TR | 112,7 |
| ZZ | 112,7 |
| 0805 50 10 | AR | 62,8 |
| BR | 40,6 |
| TR | 69,2 |
| ZA | 93,7 |
| ZZ | 66,6 |
| 0808 10 80 | AR | 119,6 |
| BR | 80,2 |
| CL | 84,5 |
| CN | 80,9 |
| NZ | 99,1 |
| UY | 98,4 |
| ZA | 89,8 |
| ZZ | 93,2 |
| 0809 10 00 | TR | 158,2 |
| ZZ | 158,2 |
| 0809 20 95 | TR | 358,7 |
| XS | 382,4 |
| ZZ | 370,6 |

(EUR/100 kg)

CN code

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

0702 00 00

MA

57,8

MK

31,8

TR

55,0

ZZ

48,2

0707 00 05

TR

95,0

ZZ

95,0

0709 90 70

TR

112,7

ZZ

112,7

0805 50 10

AR

62,8

BR

40,6

TR

69,2

ZA

93,7

ZZ

66,6

0808 10 80

AR

119,6

BR

80,2

CL

84,5

CN

80,9

NZ

99,1

UY

98,4

ZA

89,8

ZZ

93,2

0809 10 00

TR

158,2

ZZ

158,2

0809 20 95

TR

358,7

XS

382,4

ZZ

370,6

---

(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
  ZZ
  ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

---
1 

## NO. 12

- 21

- 00005

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF

A. S. M. , A CHILD §
§
§ APPEAL FROM THE 307TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is bei ng dismissed for failure t o comply with the Texas Rules of Appell ate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).
A ppellant, Author J . Manning, J r. , filed a notice of appeal on January 9, 2021

. On January 11 , the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that th e no tice of appeal failed to contain the information specifically r equired by Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedur e 9.5 and 25.1(d)

- (e) , and Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5 (service); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.1(d)

- (e) ( co nten t s in civil cases, notice ) ; T EX

. C IV

. P RA C

. &
R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on each court reporter responsible for preparing reporter ’ s record). The notice s warned that, unless App ellant filed a proper notice of appeal on or before Februar y 10 , the appeal would be refer red to the
Court for dismissal. This deadline passed and Appellant has not filed a compliant notice of appeal or otherwise responded to this Court ’ s Jan uary 11 notic e s

. 1 Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 9.5 , Rule 25.1(d)

- (e) , and Section 51.017(a) , the appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative after giving ten days ’ notice to all parties, appellate court may di smiss appeal if appeal is subject to

1 M anning is acting pro se; however, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit fr om an unfair advantage over parties represented by c ounsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P. , No. 12

- 16

- 00189

- CV, 20 17 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).2 dismissal because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these r ules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time). Opinion delivered February 26, 202 1. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., H oyle, J., and Neeley, J.3 

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 26 , 2021

NO. 12

- 21

- 00005

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A. S. M. , A CHILD

A p peal from the 307th District Court
of Gregg Co unty, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2001

- 1995

- DR )

THIS CAUSE came to be he ard on the appellat e record; and the same being considered, it is the opi nion of this Court that this appeal sh ould be d ismissed

. It is therefo re OR DERED, ADJUDGED an d DECREED by this Court that the appeal be , and the same is, hereb y dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance. By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

** **

**Section 1350 Certification**

** **

**In connection with this quarterlyreport of ML Chesapeake FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Paul Morton, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, President and Manager of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC,the manager of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

** **

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

 
| Date:   November 14, 2008             |           |       |
|-------------------------------------------------|----------------|------------|
|                                            |           |       |
|                                            |           |       |
| By                                              | /s/Paul Morton |       |   |
| Paul  Morton                                    |           |       |
| Chief  Executive Officer, President and Manager |           |       |
| **(Principal Executive Officer)**               | ** **     | ** ** |
|                                                 |                |            |  |

** **

----
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Plastron Acquisition Corp. II (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Rapp, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





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





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





/s/ Michael RappMichael
      RappPrincipal
      Executive OfficerSeptember
      21,
    2009
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 2, 2021

t0125 

# Order

Clerk February 2, 2021

159914

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159914

COA: 340582

Huron CC: 97

- 003958

- FC

MATTHEW SCOTT BENTLEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 16, 2019 judgment

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, bec ause we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Miami Fort Sampling Episode Report No. 6560, July 11-16, 2010 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) Claims and Justification 

Given the time allowed for review, Duke Energy is still evaluating the information contained in 

the draft report for CBI concerns. However, Miami Fort Units 7 and 8 are non-regulated 

generating units, meaning that they operate as competitive entities within the electrical power 

market. Consequently, Duke Energy wishes to protect the competitive positions of these 

generating units by asserting a CBI claim for information on the FGD and FGD wastewater 

treatment processes presented in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 (pages 2-2 through 2-5) and Tables 3-11 

and 3-12 (page 3-23 and 3-24) of the draft report. These portions of the report include 

proprietary information on process flow rates, process chemistry, and treatment chemical usage. 

We request that the information be maintained as CBI for at least 5 years from the effective date 

of the final effluent guideline rulemaking, for which this report will be used. We believe that 

this period will protect Duke Energy’s proprietary information until such time as competitors 

will be required to design and install FGD wastewater treatment systems to meet any 

requirements arising from the final rulemaking. 

To the best of our knowledge, aside from USEPA, the information shown in these parts of the 

draft report have not been shared with anyone beyond Duke Energy (and its confidential 

contractors). This information is not contained in any publicly available information, including 

the Internet, databases, promotional publications, annual reports, or articles, and is not the kind 

of information that Duke Energy would customarily release to the public. We are not aware of 

any means by which the public could access this information if maintained as CBI by USEPA. 

No governmental body other than USEPA has seen this information; consequently, none has 

made a determination as to its confidentiality. 

Release of the information, claimed above by Duke Energy as CBI, would undermine Duke 

Energy’s competitive position because competing electric suppliers would have free and 

immediate access to information on FGD operations and wastewater treatment that has been 

developed by Duke Energy over years and at substantial cost. By acquiring valuable Duke 

Energy information for free, competitors would be able to reduce their own costs and gain a 

competitive advantage against Duke Energy. 

The information claimed as CBI has been submitted on a mandatory basis. That is, it is 

information requested from Duke Energy by USEPA during and after the sampling event at 

Miami Fort, and is information that would not otherwise have been disclosed to USEPA through 

other means (e.g., NPDES monitoring reports).