alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005057EN.01001701.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 20 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 December 2004, in the case of Pirkko Marjatta Turpeinen

(Case C-520/04)

(2005/C 57/32)

Language of the case: Finnish

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland) of 20 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Pirkko Marjatta Turpeinen on the following questions:

| 1. | Is Article 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the right of a citizen of the Union to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States, or Article 39 on ensuring the freedom of movement of workers within the Community, to be interpreted as meaning that one or both of them preclude national legislation under which, in the case of a person who resides abroad and is a limited taxpayer in the Member State, the withholding tax charged on the taxpayer's pension based on a public-law service relationship paid from that Member State exceeds in certain cases the tax which the taxpayer would be charged as a person resident and hence a general taxpayer in the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the right of a citizen of the Union to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States, or Article 39 on ensuring the freedom of movement of workers within the Community, to be interpreted as meaning that one or both of them preclude national legislation under which, in the case of a person who resides abroad and is a limited taxpayer in the Member State, the withholding tax charged on the taxpayer's pension based on a public-law service relationship paid from that Member State exceeds in certain cases the tax which the taxpayer would be charged as a person resident and hence a general taxpayer in the Member State?

| 2. | Is Council Directive 90/365/EEC on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that described in Question 1 above? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Council Directive 90/365/EEC on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that described in Question 1 above?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 180 of 13.7.1990, p. 28.

1

---
TOMMY DUES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-3387

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 14, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mallory D. Cooper, Judge.

Tommy Dues, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, SWANSON, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Erhardt, Sr., Respondent, vs. Kurtz, Appellant. Erhardt, Jr., by guardian, Respondent, vs. Kurtz, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Friedrich & Hackbarth*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *McGarigle &' Wetzel*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgments affirmed.
#### Glaesser, Appellant and respondent, vs. Dukes, Respondent, and Anderson, Respondent and appellant. (Two appeals.)

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county dated December 28, 1926: Otto H. Breiden-bach, Judge.

Personal injury. Automobile collision. Judgment for plaintiff against *Anderson,*from which *Anderson*appeals. Judgment in favor of defendant *Dukes*against plaintiff, from which plaintiff appeals.

For the appellant and respondent *Anderson:*Shaw, *Mus-kat & Sullivan*of Milwaukee.

For the appellant and respondent *Glaesser: Wolfe & Ko-linski*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent *Dukes: Rubin, Zabel & Rouiller*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed on both appeals.
....:pproved for Release: 2018/11/16 C05114717 

.. Tep SECRET 

~ATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR June 19, 1968 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

SUBJECT: Successful TAGBOARD Test Flight, June 16, 1968 

TAGBOARD drone #512 was launched over the Pacific Missile 

Range from the B-52 mother aircraft at 1534 EDT, June 16, 1968. 

The launch was without incident. The drone profile was approximately 400 nautical miles down range and then into a circular 

course around the ship "Range Tracker" at a constant 3.25 Mach, 

for a total distance of 2824 miles. The entire flight was as programmed with the drone attaining an altitude of 91, 000 feet even 

though it was in an almost continuous turn. Preliminary instrumentation indicated sufficient fuel remained for an additional 300 

miles. 

Hatch recovery was effected at 1723 EDT. The total drone 

flight time was 90 minutes 46 seconds. 

This is the first fully successful near-nominal range flight of 

the TAGBOARD since reorientation of the program from launch by 

an OXCART type aircraft to B-52 launch with rocket boost to 

cruising altitude and speed. I believe that this flight marks an 

important milestone in the program and that we can now proceed 

with considerable confidence with additional flights toward achieving an operational capability by the end of the year. 

Although many actions have been taken to improve the system 

reliability as a result of deficiencies shown in the past several 

flight tests. the key difficulty encountered was in the failure of the 

ram jet engine to achieve stable cruise operation at the end of 

OXCART! 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

OXCARTI 

TAGBOARD 

TAGBOARD CONTROL NO BYE 13148-68 HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN TOP SECRET COpy ,) OF COPIES 

CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED fROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING PAt;E 1 OF 2 PAGES 

Approved for Release: 2018/11/16 C05114717 
, ... -~------- ---------

Approved for Release: 2018/11/16 C05114717 

TOP SECRET HANDLE V," 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

OXCARTI 

TAGBOARD 

rocket boost. The fixes to the inlet spike and modifications to control 

and initial operating limits which have been made and incorporated in 

the vehicle used in this fli2'ht have apparently solved these problems. 

OXCARTI 

TAGBOARD 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

Alexander H. Flax 

CONTROL NO BYE 13148-68 

TOP SECRET COPY_..,..-_OF_~_ COPIES 

2 2 .AGE, ___ OF_-,--_ PAGES EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

nnn nlD~rTlVI=" lIi.,nn 1n·nnFCO NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2018/11/16 C05114717
# C_2005045EN.01000701.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 9 December 2004

in Case C-177/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (1)

Commission of the European Communities

French Republic

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/618/Euratom - Informing the general public in the event of a radiological emergency - Non-transposition)

(2005/C 45/13)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-177/03: action under Article 141 EA for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 16 April 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Grunwald and B. Stromsky) and French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and E. Puisais) – the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it:

Commission of the European Communities

French Republic

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take by 27 October 2000 all the measures needed to comply with Articles 2, 3, 6 and 7 of Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take by 27 October 2000 all the measures needed to comply with Articles 2, 3, 6 and 7 of Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

| 2. | For the rest, dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the rest, dismisses the application;

| 3. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

1

---
and two -or.hs

terms au ar

'engaged. Su

d '1 vadat

sentativea

in At**

of fine

too of T.ITAL1 XII as a

paylost..

21.

controli,

•

yst sand

tion,

toohniquio.

ors

. _

intell ence 

Co 

/data 

eptual satsilite systems •fei.cOilact

I and • .• •

.

.

Cmit-effsctiveUess of various tufo:#*4

•

no slie itii.o ttechniOal. facts were made .4,411814... .••• ' •-• -

for a ay co4c3,Viii)ni about attitude: Tirol ;,td. datr-qans

;

. .. , . . " ,.

• • onoepliuill systems were:; discussed.: in•ginera..4.. .' .

hid been

data tziansm

Pield: He s

funds 4or t

the results

toted t.hat- scale of .t dins. hO 114 .4444ab4151.*'.

any . fundis and bo 4044:tkil.sti4140 on.

to .f.tomilright

the .soUrce• of

tted to disCUsS

sign •funded under Air. *ice

t 4.4) was not•pezmitted:to

'roma ning ItUdifis and was. not

f. theSe studies. •

•

•

LECLUDID MCC

DOD Dn. 5z .10

t-ese 'less.
Tri g

v-...

judgment that mosZ: of the material outiinec: by

..!.: J. ..

.

is of direct interest and importance co 1: c:

judgment that a consic:erable portion oi: in..-olved er.e work duplicates curroni: or past studies funded by

• ..% ment and done no Govern- under the cognizanc'. = ---.. It was not

, 

Possible to judge the contribution of CO

_

adies in comparison to the efforts which they pot cuplicacn.

Directo;..

04\Xational Reconnaissance Cface

•

cc - r:z. Vance

Dr. Pubini

A, %Air 4 Om
Exhibit 99.1

March 29, 2000

                           ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY
                          CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A.
               MELLON BANK CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST Series 1995-A
                              ANNUAL PERIOD ENDING
                                DECEMBER 31, 1999


ANNUAL HOLDERS' DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY

Pursuant to Section 5.2, Servicer does hereby declare to the Trustee the
following distributions for the calendar year 1999 as set forth below:

Interest Payments

A.  Pursuant to subsection 4.11(g);

    1. Amount distributed to the Class A Holders                 $45,262,873.33

    2. Amount distributed to the Class B Holders                  $3,096,542.55

    3. Amount distributed to the Collateral Interest Holder       $4,626,823.00


Principal Payments

B.  Pursuant to subsection 4.11(h)(i);

    1. Amount distributed to the Class A Holders                           $-0-

    2. Amount distributed to the Class B Holders                           $-0-

    3. Amount distributed to the Collateral Interest Holder      $12,612,591.14




                                   CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A.,
                                     as Servicer



                                   By:  /s/ Charles Haug
                                      -------------------------
                                   Name:    Charles Haug
                                   Title:   Servicing Officer
#### State ex rel. Volkman, Plaintiff in error, vs. Waltermath, Defendant in error.

*February 25*

March *14, 1916.*

*Bastardy: Not a criminal prosecution: Sealed verdict may be changed.*

*1. A bastardy*action is not a criminal prosecution, but a statutory proceeding to enforce a civil obligation or duty, the procedure being, however, criminal in form.

2. In a bastardy action, as in other actions to enforce civil liability, if the sealed verdict is defective or if the jury on polling refuse to affirm it, they may be sent out again for further deliberation, and a fuller or different verdict afterwards returned will be good.

Eeeoe to review'a judgment of the civil court of Milwaukee county: Michael F. Blewski, Judge.

*Reversed.*

The facts are these: A jury in a bastardy action were instructed by the court that if they agreed they might seal their verdict and separate. They did so and came into court on the following morning, and, after delivery of a sealed verdict ef “not guilty” and reading thereof by the clerk, were polled on demand of the plaintiff, whereupon one of the jurors answered that it was not his verdict, and they were sent back for further deliberation. Being unable to agree they were subsequently discharged and a new trial ordered. Some weeks afterwards, on defendant’s motion, the order granting a new trial was vacated, the action dismissed, and the defendant discharged on the ground that he had been acquitted by the sealed verdict. To reverse this judgment this writ of error is prosecuted.

For the plaintiff in error there was a brief by the *Attorney General, Winfred G. Zabel,*district attorney, and *Louis D. Koenig,*assistant district attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. Koenig*and *Mr. Daniel W. Sullivan.*

For the defendant in error there was a brief by *Paul 0. Dusting,*and oral argument by *B. J. Dusting.*

*603Winslow, O. J.

In this case it is held:

1. A bastardy action is not a criminal prosecution, but a statutory proceeding to enforce a civil obligation or duty, the procedure being, however, criminal in form. *Baker v. State,*65 Wis. 50, 26 N. W. 167; *Barry v. Niessen,*114 Wis. 256, 90 N. W. *166; Smith v. State,*146 Wis. 111, 130 N. W. 894.

2. While in a criminal prosecution a sealed verdict cannot be amended or changed after the Jury have separated *(Koch v. State,*126 Wis. 470, 106 N. W. 531), the better rule and the weight of authority is to the effect that, in an action to enforce civil liability, if the sealed verdict is defective or if the jury on polling refuse to affirm it, they may be sent out again for further deliberation, and that a fuller or different verdict afterward returned will be good. *Comm. v. Tobin,*125 Mass. 203; *Root v. Sherwood,*6 Johns. 68; *Steele v. Etheridge,*15 Minn. 501; *Rigg v. Bias,*44 Kan. 148, 24 Pac. 56; Proffatt, Jury Trial, § 460; 38 Cyc. 1874.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and action remanded for a new trial and further proceedings according to law.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1193 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent and 

expand the temporary minimum credit rate for the low-income housing 

tax credit program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 5, 2015 

Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. FRANKEN, Ms. 

WARREN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Ms. HIRONO, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. 

KLOBUCHAR, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. KING, Mr. BOOKER, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. SANDERS, and Ms. STABENOW) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent and expand the temporary minimum credit 

rate for the low-income housing tax credit program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY MINIMUM CREDIT RATE FOR THE 

4 LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PRO5 GRAM MADE PERMANENT AND EXPANDED. 

6 (a) MINIMUM CREDIT AMOUNT FOR NEW BUILDINGS

7 MADE PERMANENT.—Subparagraph (A) of section 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1193 IS

1 42(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

2 by striking ‘‘with respect to housing credit dollar amount 

3 allocations made before January 1, 2015’’. 

4 (b) MINIMUM CREDIT FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS.— 

5 Subsection (b) of section 42 of such Code is amended by 

6 redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by in7 serting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(3) MINIMUM CREDIT FOR EXISTING BUILD9 INGS.—In the case of any existing building— 

10 ‘‘(A) which is placed in service by the tax11 payer after the date of the enactment of this 

12 paragraph, and 

13 ‘‘(B) which is not federally subsidized for 

14 the taxable year, 

15 the applicable percentage shall not be less than 4 

16 percent.’’. 

17 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 42(b)(2) of 

18 such Code is amended by striking ‘‘TEMPORARY MIN19 IMUM’’ and inserting ‘‘MINIMUM’’. 

20 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to buildings placed in service after 

22 December 31, 2014. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6651

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TYRONE SAUNDERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:06-cr-00162-RAJ-JEB-4)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Saunders appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce his 

sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Saunders, No. 2:06-cr-00162-

RAJ-JEB-4 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 5, 2012 & entered Mar. 6, 2012). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 10.11.1


         


        AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE


        WARRANT TO PURCHASE COMMON STOCK


        THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE WARRANT TO PURCHASE COMMON STOCK, (the “Warrant”) is made effective as of September 8, 2008, by and between Blacksands Petroleum, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and H. Reg F. Burden the
        undersigned purchaser (the “Purchaser” and with the Company, the “Parties”). All capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Warrant.


        RECITALS


        WHEREAS, on August 3, 2007 the Parties entered into the Warrant;


        WHEREAS, at the time of execution of the Warrant, the Parties had agreed on the vesting provisions for the Warrant and these provisions were inadvertently omitted from the executed Warrant;


        WHEREAS, the Parties desire to formally memorialize the vesting provisions that were intended to be included in the Warrant in this Amendment No. 1 to the Warrant to Purchase Common Stock; and


        NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:


        
            	
                         

                    	
                        1.

                    	
                        Section 1(a) of the Warrant is hereby restated to read in its entirety as follows:

                    


        


        
            	
                         

                    	
                        1.

                    	
                        DURATION AND EXERCISE OF WARRANTS

                    


        


        (a) The Holder may exercise this Warrant on any business day from and after the Effective Date and on or before 5:00 P.M., New York Time, on the Expiration Date, at which time this Warrant shall become void and of no value. Vesting shall occur upon the entry into an agreement with another First Nations community relating to mineral development on their traditional lands.


        
            	
                         

                    	
                        2.

                    	
                        All other terms and conditions of the Warrant remain in full force and effect.

                    


        


        3.         This Amendment may be signed in counterparts and by facsimile, each of which when taken together shall be deemed to be an original, effective as of the date first above written.


         


        [Signature page follows]


         


        


        
            
                

            

        


        
            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of the date and year set forth above.
        


        
             
        


        COMPANY:


         


        Blacksands Petroleum, Inc.


         


        By: “Paul A. Parisotto”


        Name: Paul A. Parisotto


        Title: President and CEO


         


         


        PURCHASER:


         


        H. Reg F. Burden


         


        By: “H. Reg F. Burden”


        Name: H. Reg F. Burden


        Title: N/A
<!--/* //NOSONAR */-->
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	NRO Awards Commercial Electro-Optical Capabilities Contracts
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4619" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/DOD2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/135/transparent.png?ver=B2YYtOxzg52QYDIqGLCDCQ%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">NRO Awards Commercial Electro-Optical Capabilities Contracts</h1>
    </div>
    
<div id="adetail-slick-gallery" class="gallery">
    
    <div class="item">
        
        <div class="image">
            
            <img src="https://media.defense.gov/2023/Aug/21/2003284507/1920/1080/0/720801-F-RQ659-0029.PNG"
                 class="aimage img-responsive"
                 alt="NRO logo- smaller"
                 itemprop="image" />
        </div>
        
        
        
        
        
        <div class="slide-info-hidden">
            <div class="slide-info-inner">
            
            <div class="image-title">NRO logo</div>
            <div class="image-caption">image of NRO logo</div>
        </div>
    </div>
    </div>

    
</div>
<div class="slide-info"></div>





    <div> <span class="date">/ Published Dec. 5, 2023</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text">Chantilly, VA, </span>
    <p><br />NRO Awards Commercial Electro-Optical Capabilities Contracts.<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://www.nro.gov//Portals/135/Documents/news/press/2023/SCE_EO_Contracts_Press_Release_FINAL.pdf?ver=tWUVmEZkh__72zOTTrRzqQ%3d%3d" target="_blank">See the Press Release</a></p> <br />
</div>

    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>