alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 2020

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Bivalve Aquaculture Gear and Biofouling Control (Code 400) 

Bivalve aquaculture gear and biofouling control includes

actions that reduce, clean, or remove biological fouling

organisms and other waste from bivalve production areas

while minimizing environmental risk. 

Practice Information 

Bivalve aquaculture gear and biofouling control is used to

minimize adverse impacts of shellfish aquaculture operations and gear on water, plant, animal, and

human resources. To support shellfish production, the practice is used to ensure dependable water

quantity and quality and adequate food quantity and quality for the system. 

Examples of activities include— 

• Gear recycling—providing cages and floating bags for the purpose of rotating out gear for the

reduction of biological fouling inputs into the marine environment in shallow areas. 

• Disease monitoring—using histology samples, locating and maintaining native stock, and

performing annual pathology tests for disease. 

• Using buffers between beds. 

• Monitoring and recordkeeping of pests, interactions with endangered species, and wildlife and

boat maintenance. A spill kit is required to be maintained on all vessels. Water quality testing and

invasive species recordkeeping are also required. 

Common Associated Practices 

NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Bivalve Aquaculture Gear and Biofouling Control (Code

400) is commonly applied with other conservation practices such as NRCS CPSs Combustion System

Improvement (Code 372), Access Control (Code 472), Integrated Pest Management (Code 595), and

Heavy Use Area Protection (Code 561). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
EXHIBIT 32


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               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, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Clive Kabatznik,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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)
              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/ Clive Kabatznik
                                       -----------------------------
                                       Name: Clive Kabatznik
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       Date: November 14, 2005
# C_2004201EN.01001501.xml

| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/15

---

Action brought on 24 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-263/04)

(2004/C 201/30)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Gippini Fournier and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to supply the Commission with the information necessary to allow it to confirm that the provisions of Directive 2002/77/EC (1) have been complied with, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to supply the Commission with the information necessary to allow it to confirm that the provisions of Directive 2002/77/EC (1) have been complied with, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive;

1

| 2. | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 9 of Directive 2002/77/EC requires the Member States to supply the Commission, by not later than 24 July 2003, with such information as to allow it to confirm that the provisions of that directive have been complied with.

---

(1)  Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).

1

---
ConservaƟon PracƟce Standard Overview 

December 2012 

Streambank and shoreline protection consists 

of applying vegetative or structural measures 

to stabilize and protect banks of streams, 

lakes, estuaries, or excavated channels from 

scour or erosion. 

 

PracƟce InformaƟon 

Streambank and shoreline protection can be 

used to prevent the loss of land adjacent to 

the water. It can also be used to reduce water 

and erosion damage to land use or buildings 

or to protect known historical, archeological, 

and traditional cultural properties. This 

practice can also be used to maintain the flow 

capacity of streams or channels, reduce the 

offsite effects of sediment resulting from bank 

erosion, or improve or enhance the stream 

corridor for fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, 

or recreation. 

This is one of the more complex conservation 

practices because of the amount of analysis 

needed to determine the cause of the 

problem. When the cause of the streambank 

or shoreline instability is within the control of 

the landowner, treatment will also include 

ways to address the cause. Unlimited 

livestock access is an example of something 

that can be changed. 

In most cases, the cause of the instability is 

not within the control of the landowner. An 

example of this would be development of the 

upstream watershed. In this case, treatments 

may be focused on limiting further damage. 

This practice has a minimum expected life of 

20 years. Operation and maintenance 

requirements will be specific to the type of 

treatments selected for the site. The site must 

be inspected periodically and after storm 

events. Vegetation may have to be planted 

multiple times to ensure good establishment. 

Structural measures, such as riprap or 

gabions, may need to be repaired or replaced. 

Common Associated PracƟces 

Streambank and Shoreline Protection (580) is 

commonly associated with conservation 

practices such as Riparian Forest Buffer (391), 

Riparian Herbaceous Buffer (390), Fence 

(382), Channel Bed Stabilization (584), and 

Open Channel (582). 

For further information, contact your local 

NRCS field office. 

Streambank and Shoreline ProtecƟon 

(580) 

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
----

Removal from the Register of Case T-306/99 (1)

(2004/C 228/99)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 11 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-306/99, Oliecentrum Nederland B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

----

(1)OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.

----
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Dec . 15, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 9

- 1 0 6 1 7

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 4

- 0 3 2 9 4

- C V

- C A P

- 1

F E D E R A L T R A D E C O M M I S S I O N ,
P l a i n t i f f

- C o u n t e r
- D e f

e n d a n t

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

N A T I O N A L U R O L O G I C A L G R O U P , I N C

. , d

. b

. a

. W a r n e r L a b o r a t o r i e s ,
D e f e n d a n t

- C o u n t e r
- C l a i m a n t

- A p p e l l a n t ,
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E F O R C L I N I C A L W E I G H T L O S S , I N C

. ,
D e f e n d a n t

- C o u n t e r
- C l a i m a n t ,

H I

- T E C H P H A R M A C E U T I C A L S , I N C

. , c o r p o r a t i o n s , J A R E D W H E A T , T H O M A S Z H O L D A , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d a s o f

f i c e r s o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n s , S T E P H E N S M I T H , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d a s o f f i c e r o f N a t i o n a l U r o l o g i c a l G r o u p , I n c

. , a n d N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f

o r C l i n i c a l W e i g h t L o s s , I n c

. , T E R R I L L M A R K W R I G H T , M

. D

. , i n d i v i d u a l l y
. ,
D e f e n d a n t s
- A p p e l l a n t s ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f G e o r g i a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( D e c e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e D U B I N A , C h i e f J u d g e , B I R C H a n d B L A C K , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :

A f t e r h a v i n g t h o r o u g h l y r e v i e w e d t h e r e c o r d , t h e b r i e f s a n d h a v i n g h e a r d

o r a l a r g u m e n t i n t h i s c a s e , w e a r e o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e w e l l

- r e a s o n e d d e c i s i o n

a n d t h e j u d g e m e n t o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h o u l d b e a n d i s A F F I R M E D

.

2
No. 82-1176.

#### Bennett, Administratrix of the Estate of Bennett *v.*Enstrom Helicopter Corp.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
44 F. (2d) 875

#### In re Gilles Holst

(No. 2540)

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,

December 1, 1930

*Lmujner, Parry, Card*and *Langner (Thomas Ewing*and *E. E. Wenderoth*of ■counsel) for appellant.

*T. A. Hostetler {Howard S. Miller*of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents.

[Oral argument November 18, 1930, by Mr. Ewing and Mr. Miller]

[Before Graham, Presiding Judge, and Bland, Hatfield, Garrett, and Lenroot, . Associate Judges

Garrett, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case is a companion one to *In re Holst*(Patent Appeal No. 2539), 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 748, decided concurrently.

The claims (three in number) cover “ ring or cap shaped, member dor making hermetical seals with vitreous material.”

*752They were rejected by concurring conclusions of the Patent Office tribunals and are brought before us by appeal from the decision of the board.

The references cited are: Thomas, 946079, January 11, 1910; Housekeeper, 1293441, February 4, 1919; British patent, 15342, of 1912; British patent, 152617, of 1921.

The British patent relied on is the equivalent of the German patent cited in the *Holst case, supra.*

There is little contention as to the Thomas and Housekeeper references showing structures which are anticipations of appellant’s structure *per se,*and his principal feature here, as in the *Holst case, supra,*is the use of the chrome-iron as an alloy of which is made the ring or cap that is sealed to the glass. In the first case we found the German patent, of which the British patent herein cited is the equivalent, to have been an anticipation of this feature.

The decision of the Board of Apeals is *affirmed.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51143 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAIRO AMADOR-LUJAN, also known as Norberto Barrios, also known as Saoul Amador-Lujan, also known as Jairo Amador-Amador, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-1016-ALL-PM

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jairo Amador-Lujan appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States afterdeportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. AmadorLujan contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have beenNo. 03-51143 -2- alleged in his indictment. Amador-Lujan maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Amador-Lujan acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-25-1999
<CASH>                                           7,374
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,033
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,169
<INVENTORY>                                     16,752
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,933
<PP&E>                                          17,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,448
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,186
<OTHER-SE>                                        (47)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,335
<SALES>                                         84,567
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,567
<CGS>                                           79,397
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,973
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    771
<INCOME-TAX>                                       293
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                478
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       478
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
#### STATE *v.*PICKETT.

*False Pretence*— Sufficiency *of Indictment.*

An indictment for obtaining goods, &c., under false pretences must charge not only the false pretence, but must also contain the negative averment that the pretence was actually untrue.

IkdictmeNT for obtaining a horse under Ealse Pretences tried at August Term, 1877, of New IIanoveb, Criminal Court, before Meares, *J.*

The bill of indictment was as follows; The jurors &c., present that Joseph Pickett &c., desiring to purchase a horse of Charles B. Eutch,agreed to pay him the sum of eighty dol*459lars; $30 cash and the balance lie would secure by a mortgage on a mule to which the title was perfectly good, and of which ■ the said Joseph Pickett was the sole and only owner, as lie alleged, and also on the horse &c. And the said Pickett did then and there designedly, unlawfully and falsely pretend to said Eutch, that he said Pickett was the sole and only owner of said mule, and that there was no lien or other ownership existing thereon, well knowing the same to be false, by color of which said false pretence, he said Pickett did then and there obtain of said Futcb, one horse of the value of &c., with intent &e. Verdict of Guilty. Motion in arrest overruled. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.

*Attorney General,*for the State.

*Messrs A. T.k J.*London, for defendant.

Reade, J.

The indictment charges “that the defendant pretended that he was the sole and only owner of said mule, and that there was no lien or other ownership existing thereon.” There is certainly no crime in pretending that the mule was his, because it may all be true. Bufc.it is also charged that he “designedly, unlawfully and falsely pretended” it. It is not specified in what the falsehood consisted. Was he not the “sole owner?” Was there some other '• ownership, ” or partnership? Was there some “ lien ” on it? Or in ivhat else did the falsehood consist ?

The precedents are to the effect, that the indictment must not only charge that he falsely pretended that the mule was his, but it must contain the negative averment that it was ■not his. “Whereas in truth and in fact the said Joseph Pickett was not then the owner of said mule &c., ” is the form in Arehbold’s Criminal Pleading. And it is held that the indictment is insufficient without it. *Rex.*v. Perrett, 2 M. & W. 379. There is error. This will be certified to the •end that the judgment may be arrested.

Error.

Per Curiam. Judgment arrested.
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 9022]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Four Allegories by Veronese: A Rediscovery and a Reunion,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, California, from on or about March 7, 2015, until on or about September 7, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: January 28, 2015.

Kelly Keiderling,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2015-02240 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Notice of the 2011 annual general meeting of the shareholders of Tembec Inc.



 Exhibit 4.7 

 

 

 TEMBEC INC. 
 NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS 
 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders (the “Meeting”) of Tembec Inc. (the “Corporation”) will be held in the Westmount Room, at the Hilton Montreal Bonaventure, 900 de La Gauchetière West in Montreal,
Québec, on Thursday, January 27, 2011, at 11:00 a.m., local time, for the following purposes: 
  

	 	1.	to receive the consolidated financial statements of the Corporation for the fiscal year ended September 25, 2010 together with the auditors’ report thereon;


  

	 	2.	to elect the directors of the Corporation for the ensuing year; 

  

	 	3.	to appoint the auditors and authorize the board of directors to fix their remuneration; and 


 

	 	4.	to transact such other business as may properly come before the Meeting. 

 A copy of the management information circular accompanies this Notice. 
 Since it
is desirable that as many shares as possible be represented and voted at the Meeting, you are requested, if unable to attend the Meeting in person, to complete, date, sign and return the enclosed form of proxy in the envelope provided for that
purpose to Tembec Inc., c/o Computershare Trust Company of Canada, no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2011. 
 Montreal, this 15th day of December 2010. 
 By order of the Board of Directors, 

 

	
	/s/ Patrick LeBel
	PATRICK LEBEL
	
	Vice President, General Counsel and
	Corporate Secretary