alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004174EN.01000201.xml

| 6.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 July 2004

(2004/C 174/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2288 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,98 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4367 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6705 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1859 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5182 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 88,68 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,489 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5819 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,811 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 250,20 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4529 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6607 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4266 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,529 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 739 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,85 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,79 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 774 100 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7232 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6272 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5841 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8978 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1074 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 416,50 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,5477 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2288

JPY

Japanese yen

133,98

DKK

Danish krone

7,4367

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6705

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1859

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5182

ISK

Iceland króna

88,68

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,489

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5819

CZK

Czech koruna

31,811

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

250,20

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4529

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6607

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4266

PLN

Polish zloty

4,529

ROL

Romanian leu

40 739

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,85

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,79

TRL

Turkish lira

1 774 100

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7232

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6272

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5841

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8978

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1074

KRW

South Korean won

1 416,50

ZAR

South African rand

7,5477

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2004251EN.01001801.xml

| 9.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/18

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 9 July 2004

in Case T-132/04: André Bonnet v Court of Justice of the European Communities (1)

1

(Officials - Prior administrative procedure - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2004/C 251/34)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-132/04: André Bonnet, residing in Saint-Pierre-de-Vassols (France), represented by H. de Lepinau, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for, first, annulment of the decisions of 11 February and 4 March 2004 terminating, in respect of the applicant, the procedure for recruitment to the post of lecteur d'arrêts in the cabinet of the President of the Court of Justice and annulment of the decision to appoint another candidate to that post, and, second, damages — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A. W. H. Meij, acting for the President, N. J. Forwood and I. Pelikánová, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| (1) | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The action is dismissed.

| (2) | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ No C 168 of 26.6.2004.

1

---
# C_2004231EN.01S00301.xml

| 16.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/s3

---

NOTICE

NOTICE

On 17 September 2004, in the Official Journal of the European Union C 232 A, the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — 13th supplement to the 22nd complete edition’ will be published.

Official Journal of the European Union

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe free of charge. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/..........). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for one year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see overleaf).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L,C,CA,CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

Image

---
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-3143 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-047-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 7.0 $ 595.00 $0 $ 595.00 731 $434,945.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $434,945

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
# C_2004217EN.01002801.xml

| 28.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/28

---

Action brought on 8 June 2004 by the Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-214/04)

(2004/C 217/50)

Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure Language in which the application was submitted: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 2004 by the Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd, Windsor (United Kingdom), represented by J. H. Maitland Walker, Solicitor, and D. McFarland, Barrister.

The Polo/Lauren Company LP was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of March 25, 2004 in case R 273/2002-1 rejecting the applicant's application |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of March 25, 2004 in case R 273/2002-1 rejecting the applicant's application

| — | order the Office to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | the applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark ‘ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE POLO CLUB’for goods in class 3 (cleaning preparations etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Polo Lauren Company LP |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National figurative and work marks containing the word ‘POLO’ |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition rejected |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Decision of the opposition division annulled; registration refused |
| Pleas in law: | Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94 (1). The applicant argues that the signs in question are dissimilar. |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

the applicant

Community trade mark sought:

Figurative mark ‘ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE POLO CLUB’for goods in class 3 (cleaning preparations etc.)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Polo Lauren Company LP

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

National figurative and work marks containing the word ‘POLO’

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Decision of the opposition division annulled; registration refused

Pleas in law:

Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94 (1). The applicant argues that the signs in question are dissimilar.

1

---
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM June 2022

D. Direct effect

#. Created by practice

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

LEGEND

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Pathway

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

Residue and Tillage 

Management, No Till 

(329)

Residue and Tillage 

Management, 

Reduced Till (345)

Initial setting: Cropland located in an area identified as 

not meeting the national ambient air quality standards 

due to particulate matter or oxides of nitrogen emissions.

1. Adjusting field operations and 

technologies to reduce emissions of 

particulate matter (PM) and oxides of 

nitrogen from field operations.

Start Field Operations Emissions Reduction (376)

C.1 (+) Sustainability of 

agriculture income

C.2 (+) Sustainability of 

agriculture production

C.3 (+) Ability to meet air 

quality standards

I.6 (+) Long-term 

sustainability for crop 

production 

I.5 (+) Air quality

D.2 (-) Number of equipment 

passes

D.3 (-) Soil disturbance D.4 (+) Strategic timing of 

field operations

D.1 (+) Cost to upgrade 

equipment

I.1 (-) Fuel and 

Maintenance cost

I.2 (-) Soil erosion (wind 

and water)

I.3 (+) Long-term 

sustainability of the 

community

I.4 (+) Water quality

C.4 (+) Human health and 

well-being

D.5 (+) Alternate field 

methods or treatment
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1976 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1976

 To nullify any generalized, routine or ongoing reporting requirement 
  imposed on a person licensed under section 923 of title 18, United 
  States Code, that is based on the geographic location in which the 
 licensee is located or on the sale of multiple rifles or shotguns, or 
       any specific type of rifle or shotgun, to the same person.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2017

 Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia (for himself and Mr. Massie) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To nullify any generalized, routine or ongoing reporting requirement 
  imposed on a person licensed under section 923 of title 18, United 
  States Code, that is based on the geographic location in which the 
 licensee is located or on the sale of multiple rifles or shotguns, or 
       any specific type of rifle or shotgun, to the same person.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting the Second Amendment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. NULLIFICATION OF ANY GENERALIZED, ROUTINE OR ONGOING REPORTING 
              REQUIREMENT IMPOSED ON A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SECTION 
              923 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, THAT IS BASED ON THE 
              GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION IN WHICH THE LICENSEE IS LOCATED OR 
              ON THE SALE OF MULTIPLE RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS, OR ANY 
              SPECIFIC TYPE OF RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, TO THE SAME PERSON.

    No person licensed under section 923 of title 18, United States 
Code, shall be subject to any generalized, routine or ongoing reporting 
requirement based on the geographic location in which the licensee is 
located or on the sale of multiple rifles or shotguns, or any specific 
type of rifle or shotgun, to the same person.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.2
                               HINES HORTICULTURE
                           CERITIFICATION 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/A for the period ended March 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Claudia
M. Pieropan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the4 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that Exhibit 99.2:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirement 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/ Claudia M. Pieropan
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        Claudia M. Pieropan
                                                        CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
April 11, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Hines Horticulture, Inc. and will be retained by Hines Horticulture,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS- NETWORK DIAGRAM June 2022

I.2 (-) Potential for 

water pollution

I.3 (-) Nutrients, 

organics, and 

pathogens in 

surface and 

groundwater 

Initial setting: Emergency animal 

carcass treatment or disposal is 

needed due to a catastrophic mortality 

event on livestock or poultry 

operations. 

Start

D.3 (+) Options for 

handling catastrophic 

mortality events

D.1 (+) Prevention of 

interaction between animal 

mortality and 

predators/scavengers

I.4 (-) Odors I.1. (-) Spread of 

diseases and 

pathogens

I.5 (-) Odor 

complaints from 

neighbors

D.4 (+) Cost of 

installation, 

operation, and 

maintenance

C.4 (+/-) Income and income stability 

(individuals and community)

Emergency Animal Mortality 

Management (368)

1. A means or method for the management of animal 

carcasses from catastrophic mortality events.

C.3 (+/-) Health of humans, domestic 

animals, and wildlife

C.1 (+) Quality of 

receiving waters

D.6 (+) Energy use 

when incinerators, 

composting, burial, or 

freezers employed

D.5. (+) Labor 

required 

maintaining on 

farm disposal 

sites

I.8 (+/-) Net 

returns to 

producer

D.2 (+) Ability to 

properly treat and/or 

dispose of animal 

mortality

I.6 (-) 

Methane 

produced

C.2 (+) Air quality

I.7 (+) 

Agribusiness

I.9 (-) Cost of 

regulatory 

compliance 

2. Visual 

object

D.7 (-) Visual 

quality

Animal Mortality Facility (316)

Nutrient Management (590)

Critical Area Planting (342)

D. Direct effect

#. Created by practice

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

LEGEND

Mitigating practice

Associated practice
October 2, 2007 

MEETING NOTICE 

MEMORANDUM TO: Roy Zimmerman 

Director 

Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

FROM: Sheldon Stuchell

Technical Assistant 

Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COVERING NUCLEAR 

SECURITY 

DATE & TIME: November 8, 2007, 1:00p.m. – 5:00 p.m. (EST) 

LOCATION: Ramada Inn 

Georgetown Room 

1775 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Phone (301) 881-2300 

PURPOSE: To provide interested stakeholders an opportunity to hear NRC 

management and staff present security-related information, and 

for those stakeholders to ask questions and provide comments on 

security-related issues concerning nuclear security. Classified 

and/or Sensitive-Unclassified Safeguards Information will not be 

discussed. 

CATEGORY: This is a Category 3 Meeting. The public is invited to ask 

questions and participate in discussions throughout the meeting. 

NRC PARTICIPANTS: W. Dean, D. Dorman, P. Holahan, R. Zimmerman 

OUTSIDE PARTICIPANTS: General Public, State and Tribal Governments, Other Federal 

Agencies 

CONTACTS: Please direct questions about this meeting to: 

Mr. Sheldon Stuchell, 301-415-1847, sxs10@nrc.gov. 
AGENDA 

NSIR’s Security Public Meeting 

November 8, 2007 

1:00 PM – 5:00 PM 

1:00 – 1:15 Opening Remarks Roy Zimmerman 

1:15 – 1:30 FY 2007 Accomplishments / 

 FY 2008 Initiatives William Dean 

1:30 – 2:15 Security Policy Patricia Holahan 

2:15 – 2:45 Questions & Answers Patricia Holahan 

2:45 – 3:00 BREAK 

3:00 – 3:15 Security Baseline Insp. Status Daniel Dorman 

3:15 – 3:30 Force-on-Force Insp. Status Daniel Dorman 

3:30 – 3:45 Threat Assessment Program Daniel Dorman 

3:45 – 4:45 Questions & Answers 

4:45 – 5:00 Closing Remarks Roy Zimmerman
# Saline and Sodic Soil Management (Ac.) (610) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Saline and Sodic Soil Management (Ac.) (610) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Saline and Sodic Soil Management (Ac.) (610).

## 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)

Saline and Sodic Soil Management (Ac.) (610) (10/2020) Standard Document(78.83 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Saline and Sodic Soil Management (Ac.) (610) Overview(367.8 KB)

Saline and Sodic Soil Management (Ac.) (610) CPPE(24.89 KB)

Saline and Sodic Soil Management (Ac.) (610) Network Effects Diagram(65.4 KB)

##   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
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A2103. DAVORIS HODGES v. THE STATE.

Davoris Hodges was convicted of felony murder and other offenses. After the

trial court denied his motion for a new trial, Hodges filed this direct appeal.

Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over

“[a]ll cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death can be

imposed for the crime of felony murder, jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court. 

See OCGA § 16-5-1 (c), (e) (1); Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765)

(2012) (Hunstein, C. J., concurring); see also State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524, 524 (1)

(322 SE2d 711) (1984) (directing this Court to transfer “all cases in which either a

sentence of death or of life imprisonment has been imposed upon conviction of

murder”). Accordingly, Hodges’s appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme

Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/29/2016

July 29, 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-29-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                           6,605
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,702
<ALLOWANCES>                                       240
<INVENTORY>                                     10,950
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,289
<PP&E>                                          13,128
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,501
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,619
<BONDS>                                            105
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,929
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,501
<SALES>                                         48,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,525
<CGS>                                           44,628
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    764
<INCOME-TAX>                                       286
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                478
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       478
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>