alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2015314EN.01007201.xml

| 1.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 314/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/72

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/2075 of 18 November 2015 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for abamectin, desmedipham, dichlorprop-P, haloxyfop-P, oryzalin and phenmedipham in or on certain products

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 302 of 19 November 2015
  )

On page 17, Article 2:

for:

‘Article 2

Regulation (EC)8 December 2015 No 396/2005 as it stood before being amended by this Regulation shall continue to apply to products which were produced by .’,

read:

‘Article 2

Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as it stood before being amended by this Regulation shall continue to apply to products which were produced by 8 June 2016.’.

---
Effective February 2011 Medium Truck Tires

19

Technical Bulletins Load/Inflation General Technical Light Truck Medium Truck

•	 All dimensions taken with tire on measuring rim.

•	 Loaded dimensions and RPM measured at maximum dual load.

•	 For load and inflation tables see pages 92 through 97.

•	 For minimum dual spacing and approved rim widths see page 73.

•	 For ply ratings see table on page 71.

Bridgestone tires and tubes are subject to an ongoing 

development program. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, 

LLC retains the right to amend specifications at any time without 

notice or obligations. Please refer to rim manufacturer’s load and 

inflation limits. Never exceed rim manufacturer’s limits without 

the consent of the component manufacturer.

Technical Data

M711

11R22.5 G 265-225 125 8.25 41.9 10.7 19.6 11.8 496 26 2800@720 6175@105 2650@720 5840@105 75

11R22.5 H 283-681 125 8.25 41.9 10.7 19.6 11.8 496 26 3000@830 6610@120 2725@830 6005@120 75

12R22.5 H 265-241 143 9.00 43.3 11.5 20.2 12.7 480 28 3350@830 7390@120 3075@830 6780@120 75

11R24.5 G 265-233 133 8.25 43.9 10.7 20.6 11.8 473 26 3000@720 6610@105 2725@720 6005@105 75

Tire Size

Load 

Range

Article 

Number

Weight 

(Lbs)

Meas. 

Rim

Overall 

Diam.

Overall 

Width

Static 

Loaded 

Radius

Overall 

Width 

(Loaded)

Revs 

Per 

Mile

Tread 

Depth 

(32")

Max. Tire Load 

(Single)

Max. Tire Load 

(Dual) Max. 

Speed 

Kg/kPa Lbs/PSI Kg/kPa Lbs/PSI (MPH) 

M711

Drive Radial

•	 Deep tread depth for long original mileage.

•	 Staggered tread block design distributes forces

evenly to resist irregular wear.

•	 Aggressive traction pattern for solid grip in rain,

mud and snow.

Recommended Application

A drive radial tire specifically designed for high 

traction and high scrub applications in:

•	 Long Haul Service

•	 Regional Haul Service

•	 Pickup & Delivery Service

•	 Light to Moderate On/Off-Highway Service

Replaces:

Goodyear: G182, G338, G622, G124

Michelin: XDE M/S, XDN2, XD4
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2



                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 on Form 10-Q of Aavid Thermal
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Brian A. Byrne, Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and 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.



Dated: November 12, 2004                        /s/ Brian A. Byrne
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Brian A. Byrne
                                                Vice President and Chief
                                                Financial Officer







                                       25
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0323

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JASON PEARSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until September 30, 2022, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant's opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

August 31 2022

08/31/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0323
# Soil Survey Manual, Arabic Translation

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Soil Survey Manual, Arabic Translation 

An Arabic translation of the Soil Survey Manual.

Soil Survey Manual, Arabic Translation(13.97 MB)

The 2017 Soil Survey Manual was translated to Arabic in 2022 by:Dr. Mahmoud Khairy Mohamed MahmoudHead of ResearchesٍٍSoil Survey and Land Classification Research DepartmentSoils, Water and Environment Research InstituteAgricultural Research CenterMinistry of Agriculture and Land ReclamationArab Republic of EgyptAssistance with technical and translation review conducted by:Dr. Nour AldossariPostdoctoral AssociateCivil, Environmental, and Geo EngineeringUniversity of Minnesota

##   Contact Soils

Please contact us if you see something that needs to be updated, if you have any questions, or if you need accessibility assistance.
                  -    Soils Webmaster 
                  -    402-437-5499 
                  -    Soils-Webmaster@usda.gov 

## Find Your Local Service Center

    USDA Service Centers are locations where you can connect with Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or Rural Development employees for your business needs. Enter your state and county below to find your local service center and agency offices. If this locator does not work in your browser, please visit offices.usda.gov.
Exhibit 32.1











Certification of Chief Executive Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Tanger Properties Limited Partnership (the “Operating Partnership”) hereby certifies, to such
officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Operating Partnership for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership.








Date: August 7, 2009
/s/ Steven B. TangerSteven B. Tanger
President and Chief Executive Officer of Tanger GP Trust, Sole General Partner of the Registrant
# C_2004228EN.01002503.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/25

---

Appeal brought on 25 June 2004 by Michael Leighton, Graham French and John Neiger against the order made on 3 May 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-24/04 between Michael Leighton, Graham French and John Neiger and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities.

(Case C-281/04 P)

(2004/C 228/52)

An appeal against the order made on 3 May 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-24/04 between Michael Leighton, Graham French and John Neiger and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 June 2004 by Michael Leighton, Graham French and John Neiger, represented by J.S. Barnett, Solicitor-Advocate.

The Appellants claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order

| — | grant the relief sought by the Appellants in the form of the draft order annexed to the Application; alternatively |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the relief sought by the Appellants in the form of the draft order annexed to the Application; alternatively

| — | remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any event |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any event

| — | order the Defendants to pay the Appellants' costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendants to pay the Appellants' costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicants contend that the order of the Court of First Instance should be set aside on the grounds that the Court of First Instance has committed a breach of procedure by treating their application as an application made under Article 226 EC when, in fact, it was an application under Article 232 EC.

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF OFFICER**

**OF AMLCOMMUNICATIONS, INC.**

**PURSUANT TO 18 USC § 1350**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) theundersigned officer of AML Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) does herebycertify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(a)                                   Thequarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)                                  Informationcontained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 20, 2007
| /s/ Jacob Inbar               |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| By: Jacob Inbar,              |
| Chief Executive Officer       |
| (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
Exhibit 11

Computation of Earnings Per Share
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Three
                                                  Months Ended        Year Ended
                                                 June 30, 1997       March 31, 1997
                                                 -------------       --------------


<S>                                                   <C>                 <C>      
Weighted average common shares outstanding            7,562,500           7,341,314
Dilutive effect of common equivalent shares (a)             --                   --
                                                      ---------         -----------
Weighted average shares outstanding                   7,562,500           7,341,314
                                                      =========           =========

Net loss                                              $(921,526)        $(6,842,406)
                                                      =========         =========== 
Fully diluted earnings per share (1)                      $(.12)              $(.93)
                                                      =========         ===========                           
</TABLE>

--------

a    Calculates the dilutive effect of outstanding  stock options based upon the
     "Treasury Stock Method".

1    As fully  diluted  earning  per share and  primary  earnings  per share are
     equal,  only fully diluted  earning per share will be disclosed in the Form
     10-QSB.
# C_2004284EN.01001303.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/13

---

Removal from the register of Case C-362/03 (1)

1

(2004/C 284/27)

By order of 22 July 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-362/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria.

---

(1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.

1

---
# C_2004168EN.01000902.xml

| 26.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/9

---

Action brought on 23 April 2004 by Brian M. Ross against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-147/04)

(2004/C 168/17)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 April 2004 by Brian M. Ross, residing in Morpeth (United Kingdom), represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of 31 March 2003 definitively adopting the applicant's career development report for the period 2001/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 31 March 2003 definitively adopting the applicant's career development report for the period 2001/2002;

| — | Annul the said report; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the said report;

| — | Annul the implicit decision to dismiss the applicant's claim, brought on 24 September 2002 (R/562/03) for annulment of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the implicit decision to dismiss the applicant's claim, brought on 24 September 2002 (R/562/03) for annulment of the contested decision;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant damages for non-material loss, assessed on equitable grounds at EUR 10 000, subject to increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant damages for non-material loss, assessed on equitable grounds at EUR 10 000, subject to increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 25(2) and Articles 26 to 43 of the Staff Regulations and the General provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, as adopted by the Commission on 26 April 2002. He also pleads misuse of powers, infringement of general principles of law, such as the rights of the defence, the principle of sound administration and the principle of equal treatment, and a manifest error of assessment.

---
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-60337

____________

Pauline Tchuenguia Tamnu, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A213 315 742

______________________________

Before Duncan and Wilson, Circuit Judges, and Mazzant, District

Judge.*

Per Curiam:†

Pauline Tamnu, a citizen of Cameroon, petitioned for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) June 1, 2022, order dismissing her 

appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) August 5, 2021, decision denying 

Tamnu’s motion to reopen proceedings. After briefing and oral argument 

were completed, Tamnu and the Department of Homeland Security jointly 

_____________________

* United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by 

designation.

† This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 8, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60337 Document: 00517025463 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2024
No. 22-60337

2

moved the BIA to reopen removal proceedings on September 5, 2023. The 

parties to this appeal informed the court on December 29, 2023, that the BIA

has granted that motion and remanded to the IJ for further proceedings.

The BIA’s decision to reopen Tamnu’s removal proceedings 

deprives us of jurisdiction over his petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) 

(limiting this court’s jurisdiction to “final order[s] of removal”); see also

Moreira v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 709, 712–14 (5th Cir. 2007) (declining to 

construe the alien’s petition “as requesting review of the BIA’s eventual 

dismissal of his appeal” and dismissing the petition absent a final order of 

removal); Koroma v. Holder, 376 F. App’x 427, 427 (5th Cir. 2010) 

(dismissing for lack of jurisdiction after BIA reopened immigration 

proceedings). Therefore, we DISMISS Tamnu’s petition for lack of 

jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

Case: 22-60337 Document: 00517025463 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2024
November 2022

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

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

Conservation Practice Overview

Upland Wildlife Habitat Management (Code

645) 

Upland wildlife habitat management offers guidance on

establishing and managing upland habitats and

connectivity within the landscape for wildlife. 

Practice Information 

Upland wildlife habitat concerns are identified during the

conservation planning process that enables wild animals to

meet their life requisite needs. This practice is applicable on agricultural working lands as well as all

other lands. 

Structural, vegetative, or management measures to improve food and cover for the desired species of

wildlife are identified. Examples include creating food plots, planting warm or cool season grasses or

legumes, forbs, trees, or other woody vegetation depending on the desired-target wildlife species. 

How land is managed affects the kinds and amounts of wildlife. Carefully planned wildlife habitat can

add value and beauty to the landscape. 

Common Associated Practices 

Upland Habitat Wildlife Management (645) is commonly applied with conservation practices such as

Wildlife Habitat Planting (420), Structures for Wildlife (649), Watering Facility (614), Restoration,

Management of Rare or Declining Habitats (643), Use Exclusion (472), and many more. 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
# L_2015130EN.01000101.xml

| 28.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 130/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 130/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/822

of 11 May 2015

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indication [Capão de Freamunde (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, Portugal's application to register the name ‘Capão de Freamunde’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Portugal's application to register the name ‘Capão de Freamunde’ 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 ‘Capão de Freamunde’ 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 ‘Capão de Freamunde’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Capão de Freamunde’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.1. Fresh meat (and offal), 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, 11 May 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 2, 7.1.2015, p. 3.

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

---
# Conservation Planning Brochure and Fact Sheet

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Conservation Planning Brochure and Fact Sheet 

Read about the history, purpose and goal of Conservation Planning.

##   Download our Conservation Planning Fact Sheet

Conservation Planning and Delivery Fact Sheet(376.86 KB)

Cómo se planifica y concreta la conservación(1.24 MB)

##   Download our Conservation Planning Brochure

National Conservation Planning Partnership Brochure(5.41 MB)

NCPP - Conservation Planning - Hmoob (Hmong)(4.65 MB)

NCPP - 한국어 (Korean)(5.73 MB)

NCPP - Español  - (Spanish)(4.75 MB)

NCPP - ภาษาไทย - (Thai)(6.28 MB)

NCPP - Tiếng Việt  - (Vietnamese)(6.9 MB)
#### Hautenen (Syma), Appellant, vs. Dewey and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Kadvuit & Lepp*of Kenosha.

For the respondents: *Randall, Cavanagh, Stephenson & Mittelstaed*of Kenosha.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
No. 1304, Misc.

Petitioner *pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall, Harold H. Greene*and *Howard*A.- *Glickstein*for respondent.

#### Leigh *v.*Garrett, Chief Probation Officer.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
# C_2004228EN.01002701.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 24 June 2004 in the case of Wienand Meilicke, Heidi Christa Weyde and Marina Stöffler against Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt

(Case C-292/04)

(2004/C 228/55)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) of 24 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Wienand Meilicke, Heidi Christa Weyde and Marina Stöffler against Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt on the following question:

Is Paragraph 36(2)(3) of the Einkommensteuergesetz (in the version in force during the relevant years), whereby only corporation tax payable by a fully-taxable corporation or association amounting to three sevenths of the income within the meaning of Paragraph 20(1)(1) or (2) of the Einkommensteuergesetz is set off against income tax, compatible with Articles 56(1) EC and 58(1)(a) and (3) EC?

---
*April 30, 1935.*

#### Ziolkowski, Respondent, vs. Wisconsin Valley Electric Company, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Genrich & Genrich,*attorneys, and *Miles Lambert*of counsel, all of Wausau.

For the respondent: *W. E. Atwell*of Stevens Point.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.