alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004284EN.01000601.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 30 September 2004

in Case C-481/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

1

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2001/12/EC and 2001/13/EC - The Community's railways - Development - Fair, uniform and non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure - Licensing of railway undertakings - Common scheme - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2004/C 284/11)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-481/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents: S. Schreiner and M. Thill) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 November 2003 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways and with Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives; |
| --- | --- |

1.

By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways and with Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

| 2. | The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.

1

---
S741 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 October 17, 2014 Jacynthia Bristol, LibraryAssistant La Sal Library 893 Utah 46 La Sal, UT 84530 Subject: Public documents atthe La Sal Library for public inspection Dear Ms. Bristol: The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency sentyou apackage containing a numberofdocuments regarding the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation nearthe city ofAneth, San Juan County, Utah. Two ofthese documents contained an error, and need to be replaced. Please replace the following documents in the package previously sentto you with the enclosed documents: 1. PUBLIC iNFORMATION SHEET 2. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACT REPORT & FACT SHEET Yourassistance with this matter is greatly appreciated. Feel free to contact me at (415) 947-4156 or ke1ly.shaheerah(~epa.gov ifyou have any questions.Sincerely,

Shaheerah Kelly, Environmental Engineer Permits Office Air Division

Enclosures
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1958 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1958

  To amend the Truth in Lending Act to include retrofit loans such as 
     property assessed clean energy loans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2017

 Mr. Sherman (for himself and Mr. Royce of California) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Truth in Lending Act to include retrofit loans such as 
     property assessed clean energy loans, and for other purposes.

    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 Americans from Credit 
Entanglements Act of 2017'' or the ``PACE Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. REAL PROPERTY RETROFIT LOANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
1602) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (g), in the last sentence, by inserting 
        ``and a person who lends money to consumers for real property 
        retrofit loans'' before ``for purposes'';
            (2) by redesignating subsection (cc) (relating to 
        definitions relating to mortgage origination and residential 
        mortgage loans) and (dd) as subsections (dd) and (ee), 
        respectively; and
            (3) adding at the end the following:
    ``(ff) The term `consumer credit transaction' includes a real 
property retrofit loan extended to a consumer.
    ``(gg) The term `real property retrofit loan' means a financing 
instrument--
            ``(1) secured by an interest in real property;
            ``(2) that is repayable in installments through payments 
        made concurrently with the payment of property taxes on the 
        real property; and
            ``(3) that is used to finance real property retrofits, 
        including property assessed clean energy loans for the purposes 
        of energy efficiency upgrades, renewable energy installations, 
        windproofing or seismic retrofits, water conservation upgrades, 
        septic tanks, or other similar real property improvements or 
        retrofits to a particular parcel of property.''.
    (b) Real Property Retrofit Loan Disclosure.--Section 128 of the 
Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1638) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
    ``(g) Real Property Retrofit Loan Disclosure.--At the time of 
application for a real property retrofit loan, the creditor shall 
disclose that the real property retrofit loan will result in a lien on 
the real property securing the loan''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION


REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or


RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


(AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





I, Richard W. Lucas, as Chief Financial Officer of KSW, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:


(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  May 10, 2011





/s/ Richard W. LucasRichard W. LucasChief Financial Officer
Conservation Stewardship Program - Grassland Conservation Initiative Fiscal Year 2024 United States Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Code Practice Component Units Unit Cost

E300GCI Grassland Conservation Initiative Grassland Conservation Initiative Activity AC $18.00

CSP-Grassland Conservation Itiative Page 1 of 1 Nevada - Fiscal Year 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
BALANCE SHEETS & STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          50,144                 221,914
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,750                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,894                 221,914
<PP&E>                                           3,239                   3,239
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,374)                   (450)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,824                 224,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          234,439                  22,745
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         7,538                   7,538
<OTHER-SE>                                   (117,153)                 194,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,824                 224,703
<SALES>                                        120,550                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,550                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  238,870                 105,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (118,320)               (105,924)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (118,320)               (105,924)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (118,320)               (105,924)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)                   (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

TAZARIOUS VONELLIS HAWTHORNE, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D16-105 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed May 26, 2017. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Reinaldo Ojeda, Judge. 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

SALARIO, Judge. 

Tazarious Hawthorne challenges his convictions and sentences for 

trafficking in hydrocodone (twenty-eight grams or more) and carrying a concealed 

firearm in this appeal that is proceeding pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967). We affirm the convictions and sentences without comment. We remand for the 
- 2 - 

purpose of having the trial court enter an order that dismisses, rather than denies, a 

motion to withdraw plea Mr. Hawthorne filed after being sentenced. 

The motion to withdraw was filed by Mr. Hawthorne pro se and alleged 

that his plea was involuntary because the trial court failed to determine whether he 

understood the terms of the plea agreement, whether he understood the constitutional 

rights he was waiving, and whether a factual basis for the plea existed. The trial court 

denied the motion, finding that it was both facially insufficient and meritless. 

Mr. Hawthorne filed the motion to withdraw plea after he filed a notice of 

appeal of his judgment and sentences. Because the filing of a notice of appeal divests 

the trial court of jurisdiction, the trial court should have dismissed the motion on that 

basis instead of denying it. See Mingo v. State, 914 So. 2d 1070, 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2005); Wilson v. State, 814 So. 2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Inasmuch as the 

trial court was without jurisdiction to reach the merits of Mr. Hawthorne's pro se motion, 

we must remand with instructions for the trial court to vacate its order denying that 

motion and to enter an order dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. See id. In that 

connection, it is not clear from our record whether Mr. Hawthorne was also represented 

by counsel at the time he filed his pro se motion to withdraw plea. If, on remand, the 

trial court finds that Mr. Hawthorne was represented and did not move to discharge 

counsel, it should instead, after vacating the denial order, strike Mr. Hawthorne's motion 

as an unauthorized pro se pleading. See Mingo, 914 So. 2d at 1070; Sharp v. State, 

884 So. 2d 510, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Neither disposition reaches the merits of Mr. 

Hawthorne's claim that his plea was involuntary. 

Affirmed; remanded with instructions. 
- 3 - 

BLACK and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### R. J. HOLMES and wife CAROLINE and others *v.*THOMAS J. CROWELL and wife MARGARET.

(Same *SyTlctbus*as in preceding case.)

The facts in this case'are fully reported in the preceding ease, and it is unnecessary to insert them again. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed. The plaintiffs did not appeal from the judgment, but only from certain rulings of his Honor, fully stated in the defendant’s appeal, *ante-*

*Battle de Son, McOorhle & Bailey,*for the appellant.

*Montgomery,*contra.

Peale, J.

The merits of .this case are decided in the same ease at this term on the appeal of the defendants, this being the plaintiffs’ appeal.

We have considered the plaintiffs’ exceptions, and we do not see any errors in the rulings of his Honor thereon, even if the subject matters of the exceptions related to the point upon which the case turns. The plaintiffs’ failed to connect *630themselves with the title of Pennington, whatever that was j the jury find that Stokes did not buy at the sheriff’s sale, against Pennington. Stokes, therefore, had no title, legal er equitable. The only show of title which the plaintiffs have, is the alleged estoppel, when the defendant was present at the time when the land was sold as the property of Stokes, and consented thereto. But these exceptions have no connection with that transaction, but to antecedent matters. And so they are irrelevant, except the objection to the testimony of witness Russel], who said that he bought the land when the sheriff sold it as Pennington’s sale, and that Stokes did not buy it.

This evidence was competent.

There is no error.

Pee CtJRiAM.

Judgment affirmed.
*February 4, 1936.*

#### Reetz, Respondent, vs. Zabel and another, Appellants.

For the appellants : *H. W. Rudow*of Menomonie.

For the respondent: *W. T. Doar*of New Richmond.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Organic Transition 

Initiative

Interested in 

Transitioning to Organic 

Agriculture?

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) can help you transition to 

organic through the multi-agency Organic 

Transition Initiative (OTI). Through OTI 

NRCS will hire new organic experts to 

support NRCS staff and host hands-on 

organic trainings and assist field staff with 

organic related questions. 

How it Works

The new organic management standard 

gives you the flexibility to get the assistance 

and education you need such as attending 

workshops or requesting help from experts 

or mentors. 

It supports conservation activities and 

practices required for organic certification 

and may provide foregone income 

reimbursement for dips in production during 

the transition period. 

For example, the National Organic 

Standards support composting, outdoor 

access for livestock, and organic nutrient 

management which are all covered through 

the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program under the new standard. 

Flexible education and training activities can 

include field days, working alongside organic 

experts and more. You can work with NRCS 

field staff, approved technical service 

providers, and other approved organic 

partners.

How to Apply 

Eligible producers include farmers, 

ranchers, forest landowners, and other 

producers beginning or in the process of 

transitioning to organic certification. 

Higher payment rates and other options 

are available for underserved producers 

including socially disadvantaged, beginning, 

veteran, and limited resource farmers and 

ranchers.   

You can apply through NRCS at your local 

USDA Service Center.

Other Assistance for 

Organic Producers 

Organic producers are eligible for all USDA 

programs and assistance, including Farm 

Service Agency’s Organic Certification 

Cost Share Assistance and NRCS programs 

and assistance, including the targeted EQIP 

National Organic Initiative. Learn more 

about the ways USDA supports organic 

agriculture at www.farmers.gov/organic.

Additional 

USDA Organic 

Assistance 

FSA 

Noninsured Crop Disaster 

Assistance Program which 

reduces financial losses that 

occur when natural disasters 

cause a loss of production, loss 

of value, or prevented planting 

of an eligible crop.

OTI complements existing 

assistance for organic 

producers, including FSA’s 

Organic Certification Cost 

Share Program which helps 

producers obtain or renew 

their organic certification.

RMA 

Administers federal crop 

insurance options, including 

Whole Farm Revenue 

Protection and Micro Farm, 

which may be good options for 

organic producers. 

AMS 

The National Organic Program 

is a federal regulatory 

program, administered by 

AMS, that develops and 

enforces consistent national 

standards for organically 

produced agricultural products 

sold in the United States. 

More Information

For more information, visit 

farmers.gov/organic.

April 2023

Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. nrcs.usda.gov
TYPICAL SPENT FUEL TRANSPORTATION CASKS 

Generic Truck Cask for Spent Fuel 

Typical Specifications

Gross Weight (including fuel): 50,000 pounds (25 tons) 

Cask Diameter: 4 feet 

Overall Diameter (including Impact Limiters): 6 feet 

Overall Length (including Impact Limiters): 20 feet 

Capacity: Up to 4 PWR or 9 BWR fuel assemblies 

Generic Rail Cask for Spent Fuel 

Typical Specifications

Gross Weight (including fuel): 250,000 pounds (125 tons) 

Cask Diameter: 8 feet 

Overall Diameter (including Impact Limiters): 11 feet 

Overall Length (including Impact Limiters): 25 feet 

Capacity: Up to 26 PWR or 61 BWR fuel assemblies
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      10,829,957
<SECURITIES>                                69,375,865
<RECEIVABLES>                              168,904,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,058,567
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,332,071
<PP&E>                                       4,175,505
<DEPRECIATION>                                 103,071
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             256,298,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      213,729,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       810,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  42,315,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               256,298,657
<SALES>                                      4,523,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,752,687
<CGS>                                        1,534,663
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,696,570
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              1,61,907
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,534,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,056,117
<INCOME-TAX>                                   704,023
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,352,094
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.67
        

</TABLE>
----

UK-Kirkwall: operation of scheduled air services

Invitation to tender issued by the United Kingdom under Article 4(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 in respect of the operation of the scheduled air services between the Orkney Mainland (Kirkwall) and the Islands of Papa Westray, North Ronaldsay, Westray, Sanday, Stronsay and Eday

(2004/C 307/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-94,896-01
EX P A RTE F EDERICO VILLA, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CR11824-A IN THE 90TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM YOUNG

COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Applicant was c onvicted of felony driving while intox icated

– 3 rd o r more and sentenced to 3 y e ars’ imprisonment. A pplicant filed this application for a w r it of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that he s h o u l d n ot h ave been convicted of a felony D W I
. Specifically , he contends that one of the jurisdictional DW I convictions alleg ed in the indictment was not a final convicti o n a n d s o i t d i d not operate to make this DW I offense a felony
. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . 49.09(b); Ex parte Sparks, 206 S.W
. 3d 680, 682 (Tex . Crim. App. 2006). The trial court concludes that Applicant is entitled to relief. W e ag r ee. Relief is g r anted. The judg ment in Cause N umber 1 1824 in the 90th J udicial District Court of Young County is set aside,2

and Applicant is r emanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Young County to face the charg es ag ainst him
. T he trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within ten day s after the mandate of this Court issues. C o p i e s o f t

h i s o pinion shall b e sent to the T ex as Department of Criminal J ustice–C o r r e c t i o n a l I nstitutions Division and the B oard of Pardons and Paroles. F iled: J U NE 12, 2024 Do not publish