alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Early Successional Habitat Development/Management (Ac.) (647) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Early Successional Habitat Development/Management (Ac.) (647) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Early Successional Habitat Development/Management (Ac.) (647).

## 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)

Early Successional Habitat Development/Management (Ac.) (647) (11/22) Standard Document(40.31 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Early Successional Habitat Development/Management (Ac.) (647) Overview(70.1 KB)

Early Successional Habitat Development/Management (Ac.) (647) CPPE(29.94 KB)

Early Successional Habitat Development/Management (Ac.) (647) Network Effects Diagram(16.66 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
# C_2005132EN.01002402.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/24

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 16 March 2005

in Case T-283/02 EnBW Kernkraft GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(TACIS Programme - Services provided in connection with a nuclear power station in Ukraine - Not paid for - Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance - Action for compensation - Non-contractual liability)

(2005/C 132/44)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-283/02: EnBW Kernkraft GmbH, fomerly Gemeinschaftskernkraftwerk Neckar GmbH, established in Neckarwestheim (Germany), represented by S. Zickgraf, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: S. Fries and F. Hoffmeister, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for compensation under Article 288 EC in respect of damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following failure by the Commission to pay for the services provided by it under the TACIS programme in relation to the Zaporozhe nuclear power station (Ukraine) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and V. Vadapalas, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 March 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

1

---
THE NRO STAFF

173iNi

NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C. •

May 1, 1974

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Visit to the Senate Appropriations Committee

On Friday April 26, Mr. Plummer briefed Senator McClellan,

Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, on the NRP. The

briefing was a part of the overall Defense Intelligence presentation led by Dr. Hall. Mr. Colby had briefed Senator

McClellan and Senator Pastore the day before on the National

Intelligence Program.

Dr. Hall provided an overview of Defense Intelligence and

showed the value of satellites for the Mid East war. Senator

McClellan asked several philosophical questions. He was

particularly interested in the resource shifts of people and

to where the people were transferred. He was informed that

these were cuts and not transfers within DOD. Dr. Hall's two

main points were that the personnel cuts are beginning to hurt

and that the satellite programs are extremely useful for the

tactical situation. Dr. Hall's presentation took one hour and

five minutes of the allotted two hours.

Mr. Plummer was then introduced by Dr. Hall. Senator

McClellan was unable to understand the format of the chart

which signified NRP reductions in budget over the years. He

asked that clarification be provided. Senator McClellan asked

Dr. Hall how a two-man ExCom was able to resolve disputes.

Dr. Hall said that they would be referred to the SecDef. Mr.

Plummer was able to demonstrate satellite orbits using the

model. Senator McClellan was praiseworthy of the satellite

effort. Mr. Plummer was forced to cut short the NRP briefing

in order to make time available to Mk. Buffum of NSA and

General Potts of DIA.

CLAIUMM111111111111kgr MOO GINIMAL Oil DIM Of

exacutiva 0001M 11112 MOOPTION CAT( GOOV 117 DICLAWM ON OP MT

CONTROL NO

COPY 01 COPT

PAt pat; LS
2. lab Whigs (ame 296).

ST SAD EPE Sot ota m

Tighe.

8, % vend tine date ( ) fron ME 40 BAC oF Denver
pre loan nd an ee oe att ont

9 to
oe ot ane Toes (Peet canpeenie be in

Hed, 2

U Bey



_ von called

ih Were estimales fer

CB

= oo ee



5 Deteeine mer TO (fate ~ TAA ~ 000 = Geb - ote.)

c. ips

% Get Rricites prionity (other than M1).

8, Me-evalunte 655 eet ving vequirenmnta,

- Sebemeing TOC (Content 6A ~ 000 ~ ux. x,
Rineottenans SY

TH. EE 2G? oot 2. Pat mematrments

1. ot oe NE eney tation's highest petcetty, aman

2. me Sea atel Suto in FY 60 ent 2. tes cpemticoe fonts
become hewy in FY 6.43,

SEGRET-



: are ae! ; te we
Srbitel capability at a ees oben ,





xe on

-So
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 of Daou Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
John A. Roberts, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ John A. Roberts                  
|John A. Roberts                      
|Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
|August 11, 2004
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10175

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERIC ANTHONY THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:93-CR-13

- - - - - - - - - -

October 24, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eric Anthony Thomas appeals from his judgment of conviction. 

He argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to

suppress because his vehicle was illegally impounded and the

police conducted an improper inventory search in violation of the

Fourth Amendment. This issue is foreclosed by the law-of-thecase doctrine. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Traillour Oil Co.,

987 F.2d 1138, 1150 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment
No.

- 2 -

of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Polacheck, Respondent, vs. Michiwaukee Golf Club and others, Appellants.

*December 6, 1928*

January *8, 1929.*

*596For the appellants there was a brief by *Bottum, Hudnall, Lecher, McNamara & Michael*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *George B. Hudnall.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Lamfrom, Tighe, Engelhard & Peck*and *Lines, Spooner & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Leon B. Lamfrom, Leo Mann,*and *Lawrence Olwell,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Leon B. Lamfrom.*

Crownhart, J.

Conspiracy in the law is hard to define, but generally courts are agreed that to constitute such there must be a combination of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act in an unlawful manner.

Now what unlawful act is here charged ? Nothing but the writing of the letter. That in itself is not unlawful, however foolish or malicious it may have been. It deprived plaintiff of no valuable right. It left him free to refuse to resign and free to continue as a member of the club with all its privileges. Pie was free to, present any grievances he may have had to the members of the organization, and if they agreed with him they could depose defendants from office.

Facts are alleged from which it may be inferred that the club will lose money by reason that members, other than the plaintiff, may withdraw from the club. That does not necessarily follow, and if it should, unless the act of defendants was illegal, there is no remedy. A corporation may so run the corporation as to lessen its profits or so as to lose money without any personal responsibility of its officers. It is only when they are charged with wrong-doing in the law that courts can intercede.

We may not justify the act of the officers in writing the letter in question. It may be conceded that it was a social error; it may have been done with bad intent; but so long as the consequences are not to unlawfully deprive plaintiff of some valuable right, he has no cause of action in law or *597equity. Courts of equity cannot undertake to regulate social obligations, or the morals of social organizations, until there are legal rights affected, and then only when the courts of law can afford no adequate remedy.

We may deplore religious prejudices and intolerance ever so much, but the remedy does not lie with the courts. The remedy is cultural, and educational, and perhaps to some extent legislative. However, the freedom we claim for ourselves to believe in any or no religion, to belong to any religious society or to none, to think and express ourselves as we choose, so long as we violate no legal duty, makes it impossible to prevent our fellow members of society from exercising the same rights.

We think the complaint states no cause of action.

*By the Court.*— The order of the circuit court is reversed, with directions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.
Exhibit 12.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

COLONIAL REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(all amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2002



Description                                            12/31/02        12/31/01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Charges:
<S>                                                    <C>             <C>
Interest expense                                       $ 65,265        $ 71,397
Capitalized interest                                      8,064          10,608
Debt costs amortization                                   3,636           1,321
                                                      --------------------------

Total Fixed Charges                                    $ 76,965        $ 83,326

Earnings Plus Fixed Charges:
Income before gains from sales of property
   and extraordinary items                              $ 61,290       $ 60,117
Fixed Charges                                             76,965         83,326
                                                      ------------   -----------

Total                                                  $ 138,255      $ 143,443

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                          1.80           1.72
                                                      ==========================
</TABLE>
•

as

SPA._

19 August 1977 94i

NOTE UNDER

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. NARK SECRETARY'S COMMENT

--fS}NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 11111fflirall

WASHINGTON. D.C.

THE NRO STAFF

afternoon I attended a meeting called hastily by John McMahon

o discuss the draft executive order impl

re the NFIB principals, minus the DCI, plus

and one or two staffers I didn't know.

McMahon a sued by saying this was a first cut, intended to

get the "first b ews of the NFIB before proceeding. They mentioned

that they are keeping the Senate Select Committee staff advised of their

progress. They solicited detailed inputs before Monday from anyone who had

them.

There were only a few real meaty comments. Most comments had to do with

the legal prohibitions, legal terminoloey, and the statements of various

agencies' roles in the Intelligence Community. (State, Treasury, FBI, JCS,

and CIA suggested changes that would either slightly expand their charter or

reduce outside interference.) This all seemed fairly minor.

The comments I considered significant were:

NSA: Document blurs the line between law enforcement and in

gence collection. Worried about losing sources and methods in a case.

The Drug Enforcement Agency is now a member of NFIB (apparently by order of

the Special Coordinating Committee). Increases worry.

DIA: Worried about changing nature of NFIB;structure too loose.

Thinks DCI should be very cautious about stating what he wants NFTB to be.

JCS: Tactical intelligence should be clearly ground-ruled out of

NFIP.

I made the following points:

- NRO membership on NFIB is ambiguous. The 1965 Charter

is source document; hard to deal with in the open. Charter outdate

efforts to update it last year failed.

mamu warmni11111111::"ouLs 4"or _apiEciEF_ lido MM OMMIN flOWOMMPTION CATI

GORY 11•2 MIAOW ON MP DRY.

comimoamo Internal 

copy or cars

r Ao 1. 1 of 2 PAGES
Brigadier General, USAF

Director

41P-SECHI-

- NITC participation not specific. We assume we will be involved

in a major way.

No one offered any negative comments on my ref/arks id he

perceived you wanted to be a full member. All agreed t deeply

involved with the NITC.

The questions that I brought up Wednesday night based on the IC Staff

draft seemed to have gone away. None were brought up. Neither did anyone

from Defense bring up the question of the NITC location, I think on the

grounds that all those details need to be worked out. There were no fundamental jurisdictional questions raised, possibly excepting the JCS remark

on tactical intelligence.

I did not perceive a need to make more detailed inputs. If we watch

carefully, we should get another cut at the docuMent. If you wish, we can

draft a memorandum to Admiral Hendry and John McMahon requesting explicit

statement of NRO membership on NFIB and in the NITC.

Write Memorandums

Awl 72444,4 /0-;„

/21444/47 A-4-41 LaIL

z.e.A. 7.47 4.444,

ttus La Atri."1701.4?

la /U/6044' y Cn44 1") I•64 440 4•0

Hem t ceded

g 2,3

A14- lial.14't •

CONTN0L 640 Internal 

COPY 01. COPII S

PAM' 2 01 2 rAnt$

f. wows*

. SO I SIV

• I • Cl Mal • ...If I INVORWIVII

WWI MU IOC. AYH V 0•04.0s •
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 Annual Report of Charles & Colvard, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy L. Krist, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





(1) 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.











/s/ Timothy L. Krist


Timothy L. Krist


Chief Financial Officer


March 31, 2011





This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2005143EN.01002002.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/20

---

Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

(Case C-133/05)

(2005/C 143/29)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt by 2 December 2003 all/the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, at the federal level as regards the provisions on discrimination on the grounds of disability, and at the regional level — with the exception of the regions of Vienna and Lower Austria — as regards all provisions of the directive, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt by 2 December 2003 all/the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, at the federal level as regards the provisions on discrimination on the grounds of disability, and at the regional level — with the exception of the regions of Vienna and Lower Austria — as regards all provisions of the directive, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive.

1

| 2. | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Austria has failed to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Directive at federal level in relation to the provisions concerning discrimination on the grounds of disability, and has altogether failed, with the exception of the regions of Vienna and Lower Austria, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the directive at regional level or, in any event, has failed to communicate them to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 02.12.2000, p. 16.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ZAHIR BODDY-JOHNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 156 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1




                     SCHEDULE OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT







1.       Dynamex Operations East Inc., a Delaware corporation - 10,000
         authorized shares of common stock, $0.01 par value, 1,000 of which are
         issued and outstanding and registered in the name of Dynamex Inc.

2.       Dynamex Operations West Inc., a Delaware corporation - 10,000
         authorized shares of common stock, $0.01 par value, 1,000 of which are
         issued and outstanding and registered in the name of Dynamex Inc.

3.       Dynamex Canada Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation - 10,000
         authorized shares of common stock, $0.01 par value, 100 of which are
         issued and outstanding and registered in the name of Dynamex Inc.

4.       Dynamex Provincial Couriers, Inc., a Delaware corporation - 10,000
         authorized shares of common stock, $0.01 par value, 100 of which are
         issued and outstanding and registered in the name of Dynamex Inc.

5.       Road Runner Transportation, Inc., a Minnesota corporation - 25,000
         authorized common shares (consisting of 7,000 voting, 5,000 non-voting
         and 13,000 undesignated), no par value; of which 4,363.9998 non-voting
         are issued and outstanding in the name of Dynamex Inc., and of which
         6,545 voting are issued and outstanding in the name of Dynamex Inc.

6.       New York Document Exchange Corp., a New York corporation - 200 shares
         of common stock are authorized, no par value, of which 150 shares are
         issued and outstanding in the name of Dynamex Inc.

7.       Dynamex Dedicated Fleet Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation - 10,000
         authorized shares of common stock, par value $0.01, 1,000 of which are
         issued and outstanding and registered in the name of Dynamex Inc.