alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004313EN.01001001.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/10

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — DG EAC No 88/04

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

Support for the transnational distribution of European films and audiovisual works on video (VHS and DVD)

(2004/C 313/08)

1.   Objectives and description

This call for proposals is based on Council Decision 2000/821/EC on the implementation of a programme encouraging the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (Media Plus — Development, distribution and promotion 2001 to 2006), adopted by the Council on 20 December 2000 and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 17 January 2001 (OJ L 13, pages 34 to 43). The proposition to prolong the MEDIA programme until 31 December 2006 was approved by the Council of Ministers on 26 April 2004.

Official Journal of the European Communities

In the distribution sector, the objective of the programme is to strengthen the distribution sector for European works on video intended for private use, by encouraging publishers to invest in digital technology and the promotion of non-domestic European works.

2.   Eligible applicants

This notice is intended for European video and DVD publishers whose activities contribute to the attainment of the aforementioned objectives, in particular to publishers of works on video for private use.

Applicants must be established in one of the following countries:

| — | the 25 countries of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

the 25 countries of the European Union,

| — | the EFTA and EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA and EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway,

| — | the candidate country for EU membership: Bulgaria. |
| --- | --- |

—

the candidate country for EU membership: Bulgaria.

3.   Budget and duration of projects

The potential fund available to each publisher is determined on the basis of the market performance by the publisher in the reference year (2003). Under any circumstances the fund allocated to one company may not exceed EUR 150 000.

The financial assistance from the Commission per project will amount to a minimum of EUR 1 000 but may in no case exceed 50 % of the total eligible costs of the presented reinvestment project.

The maximum duration of the projects is six months.

4.   Deadline for submission of applications

Applications must be submitted to the Commission by no later than 25 February 2005.

5.   Full details

The full text of the call for proposals, together with the application forms, can be found at the following Internet address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/media/distr_en.html.

Applications must comply with all the terms of the guidelines and be submitted on the forms provided.

---
**Exhibit 21.1**

**List ofSubsidiaries of Sirona Dental Systems Inc.**

as at: 30.09.2006

—Sirona Holding GmbH, Bensheim, Germany

—Sirona Dental Services GmbH, Bensheim, Germany

—Sirona Dental Systems GmbH, Bensheim, Germany

—Sirona Immobilien GmbH, Bensheim, Germany

—Schick Technologies Inc., New York

—Sirona Holding Inc., Delaware

—Sirona Dental Systems LLC, Delaware

—Sirona Dental Systems Ltd., London, England

—Sirona Dental Systems SAS, Paris, France

—Sirona Equipos Dentales Ibérica S.A., Barcelona, Spain

—Sirona Dental Systems K.K., Tokyo, Japan

—Advanced Technology Research ATR s.r.l., Pistoia, Italy

—Sirona Dental Systems (Foshan) Co. Ltd., China

—Nitram Dental a/s, Risskov, Denmark

—SiCAT Verwaltungs GmbH, Bonn, Germany

—SiCAT GmbH & Co.KG, Bonn, Germany

—Sirona Dental Systems Trading (Shanghai) Co. Ltd,China

—Blitz 06-691 GmbH, Munich, Germany

—Sirona International Holding GmbH, Bensheim, Germany

—Sirona Dental Systems Pty. Ltd., Sydney, Australia

—Cyfex AG, Zurich, Switzerland (minority shareholding)

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 9821-105]

On January 27, 2015, Trafalgar Power, Inc. (transferor) and Ampersand Ogdensburg Hydro, LLC (transferee) filed an application for transfer of license of the Ogdensburg Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 9821. The project is located on the Oswegatchie River in St. Lawrence County, New York.

The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Ogdensburg Project from the transferor to the transferee.

*Applicant Contact:*                     For Transferor: Mr. Arthur Steckler, President, Trafalgar Power, Inc., 11010 Lake Grove Blvd., Suite 100, Box 353, Morrisville, NC 27560-7392. For Transferee: Mr. Lutz Loegters, Ampersand Ogdensburg Hydro, LLC, c/o Ampersand Hydro, LLC, 717 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 1A, Boston, MA 02111.                

*FERC Contact:*                     Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735.                

*Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:*                     30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, comments, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​efiling.asp*. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​ecomment.asp*. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-9821-105.                

Dated: February 5, 2015.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-02930 Filed 2-11-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02699]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9033]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo in Detroit'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo in Detroit,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a 
loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine 
that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Detroit 
Institute of Arts, Detroit, Michigan, from on or about March 15, 2015, 
until on or about July 12, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions 
or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including 
lists of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: February 4, 2015.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-02699 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
LT COL A.M. CONNOR

AF/RDPQ

73512

DONALD E. BEITSTO:)C;?/OSAF

Ns .

. .

. 4 7 UNCLASSIFIED

• viesie"'°

01 02

NO

RR RR UUUU

CSAF

MAC

•

2320102 JUN 72

Ic

IiiigNIIIPMII!

AFSC ANDREWS AFB MD

INFO AFLC

VRAMA ROBINS AFB GA

CNO WASH DC

NAVAIRSYSCOM WASH DC

NAVSUPSYSCOM WASH DC

PACMISRAN PT MUGU NAS CALIF

UNCLAS RDPQ

MAC/XPP/LGM; AFSC/DO, INFO: DOVR, LGMA; AFLC/MMG/MMAPV; VRAMA/MMD;

CNO/OP51; NAVAIRSYSCOM/4103/51048/4121/APC 256; NAVSUPSYSCOM/0424.

SUBJECT : INTERSERVICE HELICOPTER EXCHANGE

FOR MAC : AS OUTLINED IN AF/PRPL.MSG 221642Z JUN 72, TWO CH-3E

HELICOPTERS ARE TO BE EXCHANGED WITH THE NAVY FOR TWO SH-3A HELICOPTERS. THIS EXCHANGE IS DICTATED BECAUSE OF A UNIQUE AIR FORCE

REQUIREMENT FOR HELICOPTERS POSSESSING FOLDABLE ROTORS AND TAIL

PYLON. IN THIS REGARD, REQUEST TWO CH-3E HELICOPTERS BE DELIVERED

TO COMMANDING OFFICER'S REPRESENTATIVE POINT MUGU NAS CALIF ON OR

RD, PRPL, RDPN, XOOS

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

02 02

OR BEFORE 30 JUN 72. AEROSPACE VEHICLE DELIVERY PROJECT USN 2H-4116

HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF TWO CH-3E HELI -

COPTERS TO THE NAVY.

FOR AFSC: REQUEST AFSC ASSISTANCE IN FAMILIARIZING PT MUGU NAS

PERSONUEL WITH THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CH-3E HELI—•

COPTER. THIS EFFORT REQUIRES A CH-3E INSTRUCTOR PILOT TO CHECK OUT

NAVY PILOTS AND MAINTENANCE TECHNICIANS TO INSTRUCT NAVY MAINTENANCE

PERSONNEL ON SYSTEMS NOT COMMON. TO S/UH-3A HELICOPTER:. IF IT IS

DETERMINED THAT MORE EXTENSIVE TRAINING/INSTRUCTION IN THE CH-3E

OPERATIONS IS REQUIRED, THAH COULD BE PROVIDED BY AFSC, ARRANGEMENTS

MILL BE MADE WITH HQ MAC FOR FORMAL TRAINING. REQUEST THAT THIS

HEADQUARTERS CRDPQ AND XOOSZ} BE ADVISED IF FORMAL CH-3E TRAINING IS

REQUIRED. AFLC AND NAVSUPSYSCOM REPRESENTATIVES ARE IN THE PROCESS

OF ESTABLISHING AN INTERSERVICE SUPPORT AGREEMENT FOR LOGISTIC

SUPPORT OF LOANED AIR FORCE ASSETS.

IJNCLATFTrb
## Part 600—INTRODUCTION

***Table of Contents***

**PARTTITLE           PAGE**

600.00  General information 600-1

## Part 600—INTRODUCTION

***600.00 General information***

Technical Soil Services (TSS) is a function of the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), under the Soil Science Division and the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). Technical soil services are also performed by soil scientists of the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Forest Service (USFS) as part of the NCSS. This document contains material provided by these agencies and is intended for use by these agencies as it applies to their work. 

The term “technical soil services” can mean different things to different people. A major responsibility of TSS within NRCS is to assist users with understanding and properly using the soil survey and to provide users with predictions and interpretations about the behavior of each kind of soil mapped or identified under defined situations.

Within the context of NRCS, technical soil services are provided by soil scientists. These soil scientists, known as resource soil scientists (RSS), work in an interdisciplinary environment with other NRCS specialists, such as agronomists, foresters, grazingland specialists, biologists, engineers, hydrologists, soil conservationists, soil technicians, and program managers, and with university researchers, consultants, community planners, and groups involved in the development and use of soils information for the management of natural resources. NRCS has the legislated Federal responsibility to lead the activities of the NCSS. This handbook focuses on the kinds of technical soil services that are provided by resource soil scientists of the NRCS. Some of the functions performed by NRCS resource soil scientists are also performed by soil scientists employed by the BLM, USFS, and others in State and local units of government; university pedologists; and soil scientists in private industry. Through its regional and national conferences (held in alternate years) and its annual state conferences, the NCSS lays the foundation for the science and methodology required for the development and delivery of quality soil survey information to all users. 

(430-VI-TSSH, 2010)

i

1

14
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00099

- CR

Robert CANO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 477928

Honorable Genie Wright, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 2 , 2015.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
*November 5, 1935.*

#### Chain Belt Company and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission and others, Respondents.

For the appellants: *Otjen & Otjen*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *James E. Finnegan,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

For the respondent Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company: *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, *Kenneth P. Grubb*and *Jefferson D. Bumts*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
#### Schultz, Respondent, vs. Travelers Insurance Company and another, imp., Appellants.

For the appellants: *Bundy, Beach & Holland*of Eau Claire.

For the respondent: *James J. Gleeson*of Alma and *Q. H. Hale*of La Crosse.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2004239EN.01002802.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/28

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-264/99 (1)

1

(2004/C 239/61)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 4 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-264/99, Demarol B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 5.2.2000.

1

---
#### England *v.*Witherspoon.

A tender of a specific article, (as a negro boy,) where no particular place is appointed for delivery, is not sufficient, if only made at the house of the person who is bound to make it.

Tender and refusal pleaded. The note when produced was for one hundred pounds, payable, or to be discharged ■ by delivery of a likely negro, of the age of eleven years, by a day certain. The evidence was, tiiat on that day, an agent of *Witherspoon,*by bis direction, attended at his, *Witherspoon’s,*house, with a likely negro of the- age of 12 or IS.

*415
      *pef. curiam*

Ifc is not. a good tender. When a specific article, is to be delivered and no place appointed, the debtor must give notice of his readiness to pay on the day, and request the creditor to appoint a place where he will receive it; and on the day he must attend at the place appointed until sunset, to make the delivery, unless the creditor refuses or accepts before: Itere no such request was made, rtor was there any appointment of place; and the creditor could not know that he was ready to make the delivery at his own house ; and besides, had that been the place appointed, it does not appear that he attended till sunset, and that the creditor did not come. The jury found against the plea, and the Plaintiff had judgment.

Note. — in this case, Jones, Solicitor-General, alleged there had been many decisions in the lower courts establishing it as incumbent upon the creditor on the day appointed by the contract, where no place was m entioned, to demand the article at the- house, of the debt- or, otherwise he should not be allowed to support his action — (he consequence of which is, that the debloi need nol request a place to be appointed, but a being ready at his own house, would be sufficient_ Judge Wilt.!:news said, there had been such decisions, founded upon proof that such was the general course of that species of trade that the contract concerned, and that lite general practice of the country was such wil.lt respect to contracts of that nature ; but that the genera! rule of law was as laid down *rd supra.*

itioTE,— *Mr. Jones*is supported in what he said, by the case of *Armstead*v. *Abbeisan,*decided at Kdenlon, 1791. There the Plaintiff declared on a coví mint to deliver tar and other articles to a certain amount — tlu Defendant pleaded always ready, and the Plaintiff was nonsuited for not proving a demand, and refusal or neglect in the De-fendunt. < This decision may have been founded on such evidi nee as Judge *V*ri. liams spoke of. if it was not, if seuns, tobe directly against the rule laid down in Co *Litt.*210, *b.*and which is recognized as the true one in many other books.

*Note.*— Vide *Thompson*v *Gaylard, 2 Hay.*150.
c

IS) NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

UMW 4 June 1975

141MORANDOM FOR MR. puma

SUBJECT: DNHO Testimony for the House Appropriations Sdboommittee

I received a call from Mr. Snodgrass: House Appropriations Subcommittee Staff, confirming an earlier indication that your appearance

before the HAC was being deleted from the schedule. Your testimogy

was deleted along with a number of others as a result of the Committee's

attempt to accelerate action on the appropriation request.

Mr. Snodgrass requested an informal mini-hearing, to be held in

our office on 16 June. Be will be the only representative from the

HAC and current plans are for Col Wheeler and myself to provide an

informal briefing on the FY 76 NRP budget rectueet.

Cy to: Co]. Wheeler

•

I PA OLNIPM0 EXCIAPT 'OM

O&M W. 11CrstAL LI OF

Man IVi axgrimen

WRY SIO 0111:LASSWY ON NM OCT.

CON711OLNO 2111111

COPY 01 C 11' S

PAGE OF PAC'S S

pwr1/41/111

flit Col Coyle?
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed August 6, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 01010
- CR JOHN ALBERT ESTRADA , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F93
- 26578
- PJ 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Fillmore, Evans, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Fillmore John Albert Estrada was convicted, following the adjudicatio n of his guilt, for aggravated sexual assault of a child. The trial court assessed punishment at twenty years’ imprisonment. This Court affirmed appellant’s conviction on direct appeal. Estrada v. State , No. 05

- 96

- 00752

- CR, 1999 WL 521793 (Tex. App.

–– Da llas July 23, 1999, pet. ref’d, untimely filed ) (op. on reh’g). A ppellant filed in the trial court a pro se “Motion for the Court to Call the Substantiation of Guilt Judgment of May 16 1994 “Void” For Failure o f the Court to Follow Statutory Mandate
Art. 1.15 V.C.C.P. and Calling the Adjudication of Guilt on 1 March 1996 “Void” for Failure of the Court to Follow Statutory Mandate Art. 1.15 V.C.C.P. and for not having Subject Matter Jurisdiction or Jurisdiction to Enter Judgment Against the Undersign [e d ] Ju an Alberto Estrada.” The trial court denied the motion and appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.– 2

– “Jurisdiction concerns the power of a court to hear and determine a case.” Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The jurisdiction of an appellate court must be legally invoked, and, if not, the power of the court to act is as absent as if did not exist. See id. at 523. An appellate court may consider an appeal by a criminal defenda nt only after conviction or the entry of an appealable order. See Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.

–– Dallas 1998, no pet.). An order denying a motion to declare an eighteen

- year - old conviction void is not an appealable order. See id. (iden tifying types of appealable orders). We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 47 141010F.U05 /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
JOHN ALBERT ESTRADA, Appellant
No. 05

- 14

- 01010

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F93

- 26578

- PJ. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, Justices Ev ans and Lewis participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered this 6th day of August, 2014.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2026

In Re: TERRY JACKSON BENNETT,

Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(3:04-cr-00315-RJC-1; 3:08-cv-00410-RJC) 

Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Jackson Bennett, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry Jackson Bennett petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting 

on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. He seeks an 

order from this court directing the district court to act. Our 

review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district 

court has denied Bennett’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because 

the district court has recently decided Bennett’s case, we deny 

the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. 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. 

PETITION DENIED