alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-420/03: Commission of the European Communities against Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose - Directive 2001/18/EC)

(2004/C 228/30)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-420/03 — Commission of the European Communities (Agent: U. Wölker) against Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma) — application for a declaration that by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.

----
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**

In connection with the        Quarterly Report of Silverstar Holdings, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for        the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission        on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Clive Kabatznik, Chief Executive Officer        (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,        adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes—Oxley Act of 2002 that to my        knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

| Date:                    November 14, 2007 | /s/                    Clive                    Kabatznik                                         Clive                    Kabatznik                    Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

[A signed original of        this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Silverstar        Holdings, Ltd. and will be retained by Silverstar Holdings, Ltd. and furnished to the        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
NO. 07-04-0052-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 18, 2004

______________________________ LUCIO ROMAN CARRASCO, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 2 51ST DI STRICT COURT OF PO TTER CO UNTY; NO. 46,805-C; HONORABLE PATRICK A. PIRTLE, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Appellant

Lucio Roman Car rasco appeals a convic tion for possess ion of a controll ed substance w ith intent to de liver. We dismiss for want of juri sdiction.-2- BACKGROUND Appellant

pled guil ty to the ch arge of possession of a controlled substance w ith intent to delive r. Sentence w as imposed on December 1, 2003. He did not file a motion for new tri al. Notice of appeal was fil ed on February 6, 2004. LAW In a criminal case, appeal is perfected by t imely fili ng a notice of appeal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(b). The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the day sentence is impo sed o r aft er th e day t he trial c ourt enters an appealab le order, unless a timely motion for

new tri al is filed. TR

AP 26.2(a). The t ime for filing a notice of appeal may be extended for 15 days unde r certain circumst ances. TRAP 26 .3. If t he time for fi ling a notice of appeal is

to be extended, both a notice of appeal and a motion for ex tension of time which complies wi th TRAP 10.5(b) must be filed within the 15 day per iod. TRAP 26.3; Olivo v . State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 523-25 (Tex.Cr im.App. 1996). An unti mely- filed notice of appeal wil l not invo ke the juris diction of the cour t of appeals. See Stat e v. Rie we , 13 S.W.2d 408, 411 (Tex.Cri m.App. 2000). Thus, i f an appeal is not time ly perf ecte d, a c ourt of a ppe als d oes n ot ha ve jurisdic tion to address the meri ts o f the appeal, and can ta ke no action other than to dismis s the appeal. Slat on v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1998); Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 523-25.-3- ANALYSIS AN D CONCLU SION Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. A motion to ex tend time to file t he notice of appeal wasnot filed. Accordingly, this court does not have juri sdiction over the appeal. Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 523. The app eal is di smissed for want of jurisdic tion. T EX . R. A PP . P. 39.8, 40.2, 43.2.

Phil Johnson Chief Justice Do not publish
.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRegulatory Guides (by Division)

# NRC Regulatory Guides - Materials and Plant Protection (Division 5)

This page lists the number, title, publication date, and revisions for each regulatory guide in Division 5, "Materials and Plant Protection," with references to draft guides and related documents (where applicable).

See also Draft Regulatory Guides for Public Comment.

See NRC Regulatory Guides for more general information.

## Materials and Plant Protection (Division 5)

        - Guides 5.1 – 5.20
        - Guides 5.21 – 5.40
        - Guides 5.41 – 5.60
        - Guides 5.61 – 5.80
        - Guides 5.81 – 5.100

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 3, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Division 1 - Power Reactors
          - Division 2 Research and Test Reactors
          - Division 3 - Fuels and Materials Facilities
          - Division 4 - Environmental and Siting
          - Division 5 - Materials and Plant Protection
          - Division 6 - Products
          - Division 7 - Transportation
          - Division 8 - Occupational Health
          - Division 9 - Antitrust and Financial Review
          - Division 10 - General

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 3, 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND SUBSIDIARIES' MARCH 31, 1999
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          34,981
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   89,540
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,381)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,766
<PP&E>                                       3,021,926
<DEPRECIATION>                               (188,856)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,069,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          166,695
<BONDS>                                      1,113,560
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,788,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,069,006
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               117,167
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,272
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,991
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,929
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,929
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT PATRICK RIVERS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-1983 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed November 27, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Samantha Ward, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 775.082(9)(a)(1)(g), (9)(a)(1)(p), Fla. Stat. (2014); McDonald v. State, 957 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2007); Knight v. State, 808 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2002); State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1971); Young v. State, 54 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Hillman v. State, 410 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Woodberry v. State, 193 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Brown v. State, 97 So. 3d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Lopez v. State, 833 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, James S. Pak, 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, Vie Financial
Group, Inc.s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Vie Financial Group, Inc.



|Date: November 14, 2003 |  | By:    |  | /s/ James S. Pak       
|----------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | Name:  |  | James S. Pak           
|                        |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Vie Financial Group, Inc. and will be retained by Vie Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
# C_2004239EN.01002201.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/22

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 7 July 2003

in Case T-175/03: Norbert Schmitt v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (1)

1

(Member of the temporary staff - Termination of contract - Article 47(2)(a) of the CEOS - Observance of the provisions of the contract - Legitimate expectations)

(2004/C 239/46)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-175/03: Norbert Schmitt, formerly of the temporary staff of the European Agency for Reconstruction, residing in Koellerbach (Germany), represented by L. Polanz, lawyer, against European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (Agent: C. Manolopoulos, assisted by J.-N. Louis, lawyer) — application for the annulment of the decision of the EAR terminating the applicant's contract and, in the alternative, an application for damages — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tilli and M. Vilaras, judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, delivered a judgment on 7 July 2004 in which it:

| 1. | annuls the decision of the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) of 25 February 2003 terminating the applicant's contract; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) of 25 February 2003 terminating the applicant's contract;

| 2. | orders the EAR to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the EAR to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 C 184.

1

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Lessons Learned From Maintenance Rule Baseline Inspections (NUREG-1648)

On this page: 
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1648 (PDF - 7.84 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** September 1999 **Date Published:** October 1999

**Prepared by:** S.M. Wong, F.X. Talbot, R.M. Latta, R.P. Correia

Division of Inspections Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report summarizes the lessons learned from 68 maintenance rule (MR) baseline inspections (MRBIs) conducted at plants holding operating licenses in accordance with Title 10, Part 50, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 3 MRBIs conducted at plants with decommissioning certifications in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2). The MRBIs were conducted between July 15, 1996, and July 10, 1998. In general, these MRBIs revealed that licensees implemented the requirements of the maintenance rule, 10 CFR 50.65, by following the guidance in NUMARC 93-01, "Industry Guideline for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants," as endorsed by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.160, "Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants." Additionally, licensees effectively determined which structures, systems, and components (SSCs) at each site were within the scope of the MR. The use of expert panels was effective in determining which SSCs were risk significant. The results of the MRBIs also indicated that several expert panels performed other MR activities that exceeded the guidance in NUMARC 93-01. When setting goals or performance measures (criteria) in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1) or (a)(2), respectively, most licensees considered risk insights from the probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs). However, early MRBIs revealed that some licensees did not have adequate technical justification for deviating from SSC reliability and availability assumptions in the PRAs when establishing goals or performance criteria and did not adequately assess planned and emergent maintenance activities. Most licensees' individual self-assessments were a MR program implementation strength. Most licensees also established reasonable plans and methods to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of equipment performance monitoring and preventive maintenance, including the balance between reliability and availability.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### In re Weaver.

*February 4*

February *22, 1916.*

*Prohibition: When writ issues: Criminal lato: Lack of preliminary examination: Jurisdiction of circuit court: Remedy by plea in abatement.*

.1. The writ of prohibition is a high prerogative writ by which, where there is no other adequate remedy, an inferior court is prevented from going outside of or beyond its jurisdiction.

*2.*The fact that there has been no preliminary examination of the accused is not sufficient ground for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from proceeding in a criminal action, (1) because that fact does not affect the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and (2) because the remedy by plea in abatement is adequate and complete.

ApplicatioN for writ of prohibition.

*Denied.*

The cause was argued orally by *F. 0.*Alvord, for the petitioner.

Per CuriaM.

The petitioner asks for a writ of prohibition commanding the circuit court for Bayfield county to de'sist from further proceedings in a criminal action pending therein against him on the ground that the examining magistrate lost jurisdiction of the preliminary examination in •the case and hence that there has been no legal examination.

Counsel are entirely mistaken as to the scope and functions •of the writ of prohibition. It is a high prerogative writ by which an inferior court is prevented from going outside of ■or beyond its jurisdiction where there is no other adequate remedy. *State ex rel. Fourth Nat. Bank v. Johnson,*103 Wis. 591, 79 N. W. 1081. That it should not issue in the present case is apparent for two reasons. ■ *First,*the entire absence of a preliminary examination in a criminal case does not affect the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Unless the defendant pleads the lack of an examination before pleading .to the merits he waives the point. Sec. 4654, Stats. 1915. *500This would not be so if the examination were necessary to the jurisdiction. Second, the remedy by plea in' abatement is adequate and complete. If this court could be called upon to try in advance all preliminary objections in criminal cases because there is apprehension that the circuit courts will rule-adversely upon them, the administration of the criminal law would be in a very unsatisfactory state and this court would probably have little time for anything else. To state the proposition is to answer it.

Motion denied.
# L_2015146EN.01003001.xml

| 11.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 146/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 146/30

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 of 7 May 2015 concerning restrictive measures in respect of the situation in South Sudan, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 748/2014

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 117 of 8 May 2015
  )

On page 21, Article 27:

for:

‘Article 27

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.’,

read:

‘Article 27

Regulation (EU) No 748/2014 is hereby repealed.

Article 28

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.’.

---
# Spring Development (No.) (574) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Spring Development (No.) (574) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Spring Development (No.) (574).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Spring Development (No.) (574) (9/2020) Standard Document(72.4 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Spring Development (No.) (574) Overview(212.6 KB)

Spring Development (No.) (574) CPPE(25.3 KB)

Spring Development (No.) (574) Network Effects Diagram(195.63 KB)

## Conservation at Work: Spring Development

This video explores how Dar and Bryce Meredith implemented this conservation practice on their land in Reno, Nevada.

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Corautus Genetics Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard E. Otto, President and Chief Executive Officer of 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 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.



Date: May 16, 2005



/s/ RICHARD E. OTTOName: Richard E. Otto Title: President and Chief Executive Officer




---

CERTIFICATION 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 Corautus Genetics Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert T. Atwood, Chief Financial Officer of 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 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.



Date: May 16, 2005



/s/ ROBERT T. ATWOODName: Robert T. AtwoodTitle: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer