alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2015246EN.01000501.xml

| 23.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 246/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 246/5

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1577

of 9 September 2015

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Patata novella di Galatina (PDO)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Patata novella di Galatina’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Patata novella di Galatina’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Patata novella di Galatina’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Patata novella di Galatina’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Patata novella di Galatina’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 9 September 2015.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 128, 21.4.2015, p. 11.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
#### Nicholson and another, Respondents, vs. Schroeder and others, Appellants.

*October 17*

November *11, 1930.*

*518For the appellants there was a brief by *Sol P. Huntington*of Green Bay, attorney, and *J. L. Burden*of Chicago of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Huntington.*

*Robert A. Kaftan,*attorney, and *Raymond J. Rahr*of counsel, both of Green Bay, for the respondents.

Owen, J.

On the 11th day of September, 1929, the plaintiffs’ delivery truck was being driven east on Cass street, in the city of Green Bay, by Francis Bertrand, plaintiffs’ employee. At the intersection of Cass and Roosevelt streets a collision occurred between plaintiffs’ truck and a Ford coupé owned by the defendants Schroeder, resulting in damage to the truck, to recover which this action was brought. Upon a special verdict, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs. We conclude that this judgment must be reversed because of the contributory negligence of the driver of the truck.

According to the testimony of plaintiffs’ driver, when he was fifty feet from the intersection he had a clear view of Cass street south for a distance of four hundred feet, and when he was twenty-five feet from the intersection he could have seen almost to the next block, said to have been a distance of almost four hundred and eighty feet. While upon his direct examination he made some pretense that he looked to the south as he approached the intersection and did not see anything, it is apparent from his own testimony that if he had looked he would have seen the Ford coupé. Upon his cross-examination he admitted that if there had been a car within two hundred or four hundred feet of the intersection, he could have seen it before he got into the intersection, but that, as a matter of fact, he did not see the defendants’ car approaching until the engine of the truck he was driving crossed the center line of Roosevelt street, *519his expression being, “I may have'seen him; I didn’t pay no attention to him.”

It thus appears that the driver of plaintiffs’ truck was totally oblivious of the approach of defendants’ car until the moment of impact, although his outlook was unob-scured and he lacked no opportunity for discovering its approach. That he exercised no care at all and maintained no lookout whatever is plainly indicated by his own statement, “I may have seen him; I didn’t pay no attention to him.” Had he looked he must have seen the approach of defendants’ Ford coupé, whatever its rate of speed. There is no evidence that his attention was diverted. No reason is assigned why he should not have seen it. Had he seen it, the exercise of the slightest care on his part would have avoided the collision. Under such circumstances the driver of plaintiffs’ truck must be held guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, for which reason no damages can be recovered.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances (NUREG-0750)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Preface

Download complete documents

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

## Publication Information

**Prepared by:**Office of AdministrationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Preface

The hardbound edition of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances is a final compilation of the monthly issuances. It includes all of the legal precedents for the agency within a six-month period. Any opinions, decisions, denials, memoranda and orders of the Commission inadvertently omitted from the monthly softbounds and any corrections submitted by the NRC legal staff to the printed softbound issuances are contained in the hardbound edition. Cross references in the text and indexes are to the NRCI page numbers which are the same as the page numbers in this publication.

Issuances are referred to as follows: Commission—CLI, Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards—LBP, Administrative Law Judges—ALJ, Directors' Decisions—DD, and Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking—DPRM.

The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any independent legal significance.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, December 18, 2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         687,835
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                    70,202
<INVENTORY>                                    278,921
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,212,162
<PP&E>                                         362,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                 256,064
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,324,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          544,923
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,645
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,451
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,324,219
<SALES>                                      1,287,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,289,514
<CGS>                                          709,706
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  709,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,919,011
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                28,715
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,935
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,339,203)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,339,203)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,339,203)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.24)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-145489, 333-133702, 333-152720 and 333-160407 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 30, 2009 (October 27, 2009 as to the effects of the Current Restatement discussed in Note 2),relating to the consolidated financial statements of Taleo Corporation and subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption ofFinancial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB No. 109,” effective January 1, 2007, and restatement of the Company’s consolidated financialstatements for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006) and our report dated April 30, 2009 (October 27, 2009 as to the effects of the material weakness described in the fourth paragraph of Management’s Report on Internal Control OverFinancial Reporting (as revised)) relating to the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting because of amaterial weakness, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

San Jose, California 

October 27, 2009
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                               HINES HORTICULTURE

                            CERTIFCATION 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 Hines Horticulture, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephen P. Thigpen, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


                                                   By:   /s/ Stephen P. Thigpen
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Stephen P. Thigpen
                                                         CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


November 14, 2002
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00146-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.W., A CHILD §

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 325th District Court

of Tarrant County (325-683388-20)

August 19, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no reversible error in the trial court’s order of termination. It is ordered that the 

trial court’s order of termination is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Brian Walker

 Justice Brian Walker
# L_2015103EN.01000401.xml

| 22.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 103/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 103/4

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/624

of 14 April 2015

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Patata Rossa di Colfiorito (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Patata Rossa di Colfiorito’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Patata Rossa di Colfiorito’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Patata Rossa di Colfiorito’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Patata Rossa di Colfiorito’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Patata Rossa di Colfiorito’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 14 April 2015.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 432, 2.12.2014, p. 8.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 20

- 00341

- CV

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. d/b/a Chrysler Capital, Appellant

v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

, Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- CI

- 01960 Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s June 11, 2020 order granting City of S an Antonio’s plea to the jurisdiction is AFFIRMED. We tax costs of court for this appeal against Santander Consumer USA, Inc. d/b/a Chrysler Capital.

SIGNED December 30, 2020.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# The U.S. HRA Empirical Study – Assessment of HRA Method Predictions against Operating Crew Performance on a U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Simulator (NUREG-2156)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-2156 (PDF - 6.30 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**September 2015**Date Published:**June 2016

**Prepared by:** John Forester1,7, Huafei Liao1, Vinh N. Dang2, Andreas Bye3, Erasmia Lois4, Mary Presley5, Julie Marble4, Rod Nowell6, Helena Broberg3, Michael Hildenbrandt3, Bruce Hallbert7, and Tommy Morgan7

1Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA2Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland3OECD Halden Reactor Project, Institute for Energy Technology, IFE, Haden, Norway4U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA5Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA6South Texas Project, TX, USA7Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, USA

Erasmia Lois and Y. James Chang, NRC Project Managers

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report documents the U.S. Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) Empirical Study (referred to as the U.S. Study in the report), which is a large systematic data collection effort supported by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission with participation of organizations from five countries representing industry, regulators, and the research community. The objective of the U.S. Study was to improve the insights developed from the International HRA Empirical Study [1–4] (referred to as the International Study) and address the limitations of that study.

Similar to the International Study, the U.S. Study evaluated the performance of different HRA methods by comparing method predictions to actual crew performance in simulated accident scenarios conducted in a U.S. nuclear power plant (NPP) simulator. There was significant agreement in the findings and conclusions between the International and U.S. studies in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the HRA methods evaluated in both studies and in the overall findings about HRA and the identified needed improvements. In addition to identification of some new HRA- and method-related issues, the design of the U.S. Study allowed insights to be obtained on some issues that were not resolved in the International Study. In particular, because multiple HRA teams applied each method in the U.S. Study, comparing their analyses and predictions allowed separation of analyst effects from method effects and allowed conclusions to be drawn on aspects of methods that are susceptible to different application or usage by different analysts that may lead to differences in results. The findings serve as a strong basis for improving the consistency and robustness of HRA, which in turn facilitates identification of mechanisms for improving operating crew performance in NPPs.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Exhibit
      23.4




January
      12, 2007




El
      Capitan Precious Metals Inc.


Suite
      216


14301
      N.
      87th Street


Scottsdale,
      AZ 85260




Gentlemen:




The
      undersigned hereby consents to the reference to the undersigned in the Annual
      Report on Form 10-KSB of El Capitan Precious Metals, Inc. for the year ended
      September 30, 2006 (the “Annual Report”), including without limitation
      references in Item 2 of the Annual Report, to be filed with the United States
      Securities and Exchange Commission.




I
      also
      confirm that I have read each of the references to me in the Annual Report
      and
      concur with such statements. In giving this consent, the undersigned does not
      admit that he is within the category of persons whose consent is required by
      Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules and
      regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission.




Sincerely,/s/
              Michael J. WendellMichael
              J. Wendell
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of ResolutionPerformance Products LLC and RPP Capital Corporation (the “Companies”) on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marvin O. Schlanger,Chief Executive Officer and I, David S. Graziosi, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to theundersigned’s knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));  and

 

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

 

 
| By:                     | /s/Marvin O. Schlanger, CEO |   | By: | /s/David S. Graziosi, CFO |   |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|-----|---------------------------|--------|
| Marvin O. Schlanger     | David S. Graziosi           |
| Chief Executive Officer | Chief Financial Officer     |
| March 31, 2005     | March 31, 2005         |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Companies and will be retained bythe Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
1

The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1516

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa

George Harper, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 14, 2001

Filed: December 5, 2001 

___________

Before BYE, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1

 dismissed as time-barred George Harper's initial 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion, which sought retroactive application of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000). We subsequently determined that Apprendi may not be applied

retroactively to initial § 2255 motions. United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 997 (8th
-2-

Cir. 2001); see also Murphy v. United States, 268 F.3d 599, 601 (8th Cir. 2001)

(applying Moss); Jarrett v. United States, 266 F.3d 789, 791 (8th Cir. 2001) (same).

Our decision in Moss is fatal to Harper's Apprendi claim. We therefore affirm

the district court's dismissal of Harper's § 2255 motion.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.