alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01028201.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/282 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/282

---

(2004/C 88 E/0289)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1110/04

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   Transeuropean transport networks

Subject:

The list of priority projects stemming from transeuropean transport networks is currently being finalised by the Council and the European Parliament.

With which authority does the decision to determine the exact course of these projects lie?

Is it the European Commission on the grounds of its power to implement the decision?

Is it the Parliament and Council, as co-legislators and holders of the power of codecision in this case?

Or is it for each Member State to decide for the part of the project situated on its territory?

Will local authorities be consulted?

Finally, to what extent will local community associations and citizens be made partners in the process of determining the guidelines?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

(30 April 2004)

The determination of the exact route alignment of a priority project falls under the responsibility of the project promoter, which can be the State, a region or a local administration depending on the legal framework applicable in the Member State concerned. Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001, on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) and 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) apply to these projects. These lay down requirements for the consultation of all relevant stakeholders. In addition, national procedures for granting development consent or building permits are applicable and foresee consultation of concerned stakeholders.

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

1

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

2

---
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-1036 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-088-AD

Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB139 and AW139 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 26 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: This action is prompted by some in-flight emergencies due to internal corrosion of the MAU 

circuit card assemblies. This action requires inspecting certain modules and connectors for corrosion, 

cleaning if corrosion is found on the connectors, replacing modules if corrosion is found on the modules, 

and modification of the Number 2 Modular Avionic Unit ventilation duct.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $360,738 (replace) plus $440 (modification)

Labor per Helicopter

(8 x $85/work-hour)

$680

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $361,858 

Total US Fleet Cost $9,408,308

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: George Schwab
# CE2004084EN.01075901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/759 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/759

---

(2004/C 84 E/0854)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0077/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Waste water treatment in Ireland

Subject:

What response, if any, has the Commission received from the Irish Government in relation to the final written warning it sent to the Irish Government in July (IP/03/1108) regarding the treatment of urban waste water? What is the Commission's attitude to the Irish Government's response and what action is it now taking or proposing to take in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

(2 March 2004)

The Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion to Ireland on 7 October 2002 with regard to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1). In 2003, Ireland sent two responses to this Reasoned Opinion. These responses are still under consideration.

1

---

(1)  OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

1

---
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

April 5, 2012 

Ms. Lois A. Scott 

Chief Financial Officer 

City of Chicago 

Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 

33 North LaSalle Street, Suite 600 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Dear Ms. Scott: 

BOO Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Subject: FAA Docket 2006-25867, Chicago Midway International Airport, Airport 

Privatization Program 

Thank you for your March 28 letter requesting an extension of time for the city of Chicago 

to develop a course of action for the city's participation in the Federal Aviation 

Administration's (FAA) Airport Privatization Pilot Program. 

The FAA grants the city's request for additional time to submit a revised preliminary 

application by December 31, 2012. This information must include at a minimum, an updated 

statement of the city's authority to lease the Midway Airport (MDW) with a citation to legal 

authority, as well as a reasonable and realistic timetable for transferring MDW. If the city 

moves forward with its application, it will provide a copy of the request for qualifications 

with a distribution date also no later than December 31, 2012. 

As you stated in your letter, if this information is not submitted to the FAA by December 31, 

2012, the FAA will consider the city's application to be officially withdrawn, will remove 

MDW from the airport privatization program slot and will close Docket 2006-25867. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at 202-267-3085. 

Sincerely, 

ti?JcdJ;#-

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00283

- CR

JAMES EDWARD JOHNSON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMEN T

----------

We have considered “ Defend ant = s Motion To Dismiss Appeal. ” The motion

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this

motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 18, 2011
07/02/201 0 n;5 1 FA X 202493514 2 07/01/201 0 16:I S TA X 301294252 5 FA A Aviatio n La wlixpert s + DM S glOOl/OO l ^OOOJ/OOO I 

### Aviatio n La wExperts , LL C

& 

### Th e Aviatio n La wFir m

33 0 Aviatio n Wa y Secon d Floo r Frederick , M D 2l70 l 1-877-4-AIR-LA W • 301-294-855 0 - 301-294-252 5 fa x

www.AYiationLawFxperts.co m Repl yt o e-mail : Greg@AviationLawExpen;s.Co m Gregori rS . Winton , Csq Aomicte a m no , NY , PA , C T snc j WoK.MnoCon , D.C . Cap t C,h . "No»h ' Flood s E»q . « " " Aflmluft di nO H Onl Y PA R (>art 12 1 Un e Chee k Pilo t cregor yA . F«lT h fteUred MTS B Senio rAi rSafet yInvesrlS»to r Kl«har< l 3 . WeniMact h Reare d MTS B Naciona l Acs&u/^ cSpecialis e fo rAT C Richar d C . Pec k Retire d F M Optrttlon s Uni t SLttery\si> f WalK TUppa n Retire d FA

A Aviatio n Safet yInspecto r fl«iald M . Stiarcprklg e FA APar t 12 1 Airlin e Captai n LC . Col . :iD« l Soidban d Retire d USA F Pilo t Avifttio n Safet yProgra m Man:igc r Jul y 1,201 0 Vi aFacsimil e No , (202 ) 493-514 2 an dRegula r

Mai l Stephani e McClai n Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , Suit e 2W100 0 Federal Aviatio n Admimstration , AGC-43 0 SO O Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Re : Gree n Aviatio n Managemen t Co. , LLC ; FDM S No . FAA-2007-2698 9 Reques t for Extensio n o f

Time Dea r Ms . McClain : Pleas e b e advise dtha t

thi s offic e represent s Respondent , Gree n Aviatio n Managemen t Co. , LLC , regardin g th e above-reference dmaxier . I aro i n receip t o f th e Administrator' s Order for Furthe r Briefin g ser^'e do nJun e 14 , 2010 . Th e purpos e o f

thi s lette r i s t o respectfull y reques t

a n extensio n o f

tim e t o fil e additiona l briefs . Du e t o th e complexity o f

th e issue s involve dan dth e researc hrequired , I hereb y respectfiill y reques t asixty (60 ) da y extensio n of

tim e t o submi t

th e additional brief

s du e t o my bus y tria l schedule . I f m y reques t

i s granted , I understan dtha t

initia l brief

s wil l b e du e o n o r

before Septembe r

13,2010 . I attempte dt o contacte dAgenc y counse l today i n orde r

t o obtai n hi s consen t

for an extensio n o f

time . I lef

t message s a

t bothhi s offic e an dcel l phon e numbers , I hav e no t ye t receive daresponse . A s thi s cas e involve s aclai mfor attorne y fee s unde r

th e Equal Acces s t o Justic e Ac t followin g th e FAA' s withdrawa l o f

it s Complain t

o n Octobe r

2,2007 , th e requeste dextensio n o f an additiona l sixty (60 ) day s wil l no t fiirther prejudic e th e Complainan t I f yo u hav e an y ^ cooperation . Sincer j ns , pleas e do no t hesitat e t o contac t

me . Than k

yo u i n advanc e for

you r anticipate d

Gx^or y S . Winto n cc : Christian L . Lewerenz , Esq .
Unassociated Document


    


      



      



      



      



      



      



      



      




    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

    
      [DC
        PARTNERS LETTERHEAD]

      


      August
        20, 2008

      


      


      VIA
        EMAIL

      


      Richard
        Berman

      CEO

      Morlex,
        Inc.

      420
        Lexington Avenue, Suite 450

      New
        York,
        NY 10170

      


      Re: Advisory
        Agreement Amendment

      


      Dear
        Mr.
        Berman:

      


       

      This
        letter will serve to amend and incorporate by reference the engagement agreement
        dated January 10, 2008 between All Ad Acquisition, Inc., and its assignors
        or
        successors, and DC Associates LLC.

       

      The
        agreement is still in force and effect and is modified as follows:

       

      
        	
              	2.	
                Scope
                  of Work; Parameters:

              


      

      Added:
        DC
        Associates shall advise the Company regarding: (i) the turnaround of its
        operations, (ii) settlement with Jason J. Kulpa, (iii) restructuring the
        Company, (iv) recapitalization of indebtedness and (v) the recruitment of
        a
        full-time Chief Executive Officer.

       

      
        	
              	3.	
                Fees:

              


      

      One
        million (1,000,000) shares of Common Stock of Morlex, Inc. upon successful
        restructuring of Morlex, Inc.’s and its subsidiary’s indebtedness. Additional
        compensation will be success-based and as determined by the Board of
        Directors.

       

      


       

      [Remainder
        of page intentionally left blank]

       

      
        
          
          

        

        
          
          

          
            

          

        

        
          
          

        

      

       

      
        	 	
                Sincerely,

              
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	
                DC
                  ASSOCIATES LLC

              
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	
                By:

              	
                /s/
                  Michael Crow

              	 
	 	
                Name:

              	
                Michael
                  Crow

              	 
	 	
                Title:

              	
                President

              	 
	 	 	 	 


      

      
 

      
        	
                ACCEPTED
                  AND APPROVED:

              
	 	 	 
	
                MORLEX,
                  INC.

              
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	
                By:

              	
                /s/
                  Richard Berman

              	 
	
                Name:

              	
                Richard
                  Berman

              	 
	
                Title:

              	
                CEO
U.S. Refinery and Blender Production of Motor Gasoline, Finished, Conventional, Greater than Ed55 (Thousand Barrels)

file:///C|/...finery%20and%20Blender%20Production%20of%20Motor%20Gasoline,%20Finished,%20Conventional,%20Greater%20than%20Ed55%20(Thousand%20Barrels).htm[9/18/2013 9:01:52 AM]

View History: Monthly Annual Download Data (XLS File)

U.S. Refinery and Blender Production of Motor Gasoline, Finished, Conventional, Greater than Ed55

(Thousand Barrels)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

 2010 17 18 51 63 51 59 58 62 59 79 43 50

 2011 52 57 80 78 99 96 84 81 81 72 65 73

 2012 44 69 90 92 90 86 77 80 77 72 62 52

 2013 49 64 73 75 106 98

- = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

Release Date: 8/29/2013

Next Release Date: Last Week of September 2013

Referring Pages:

Refinery & Blender Net Production of Conventional Gasoline Blended with Fuel Ethanol, Greater than Ed55

U.S. Refinery and Blender Net Production

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
Summit Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form S-8 of our report dated 
March 17, 1999 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph relating to a change in accounting principle described in
Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements), appearing in the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 1998.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
May 6, 1999
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. IA-14-025-EA; ASLBP No. 14-932-02-EA-BD01]

                    Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.313(c) and 2.321(b), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the above-captioned                     *James Chaisson*                     enforcement action proceeding is hereby reconstituted as follows: Administrative Judge G. Paul Bollwerk, III (who was serving as a Licensing Board member in this proceeding) is appointed to serve as Chairman; and Administrative Judge Michael M. Gibson (who was serving as Chairman in this proceeding) is appointed to serve as a Licensing Board member.                

                    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall continue to be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule.                     *See*10 CFR 2.302*et seq.*

Issued at Rockville, Maryland this 19th day of February 2015.

E. Roy Hawkens,

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.

[FR Doc. 2015-03899 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>          MAR-31-1998

<CASH>                       4,115,070 
<SECURITIES>                      0    
<RECEIVABLES>                4,186,998 
<ALLOWANCES>                      0    
<INVENTORY>                       0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             8,302,068 
<PP&E>                      52,350,885 
<DEPRECIATION>                    0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>              65,688,767 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>       49,647,978 
<BONDS>                     47,223,987 
<COMMON>                          0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0    
<PREFERRED>                       0    
<OTHER-SE>                 (33,366,316)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>65,688,767 
<SALES>                      4,661,787 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             4,877,108 
<CGS>                             0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                2,455,801 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               259,873 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           2,286,879 
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (125,445)
<INCOME-TAX>                      0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (42,047)
<DISCONTINUED>                    0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0    
<CHANGES>                         0    
<NET-INCOME>                   (42,047)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (.29)

        


</TABLE>
Docket Information Sheet

After publication of the Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91 Helicopter 

Operations final rule and before effective date of the final rule, the FAA met with the Air Medical 

Operators Association (AMOA), the Helicopter Association International (HAI) and the Association of 

Air Medical Services (AAMS) on March 19, 2014 to discuss comments about the final rule. The FAA 

also met again with AMOA on June 18, 2014. Both meetings took place at FAA Headquarters in 

Washington, D.C. Additionally, HAI, AMOA, and AAMS submitted a summary of concerns and 

comments on the final rule. Their submission is posted in the docket.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,201,610
<SECURITIES>                                   657,431
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,347,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                    51,836
<INVENTORY>                                  3,678,067
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,035,592
<PP&E>                                       2,677,786<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,166,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,531,121
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,185
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,323,822
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,166,590
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,485,923
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,991,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,424,188
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,301,629)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,305,501)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,305,501)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.48)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)<F2>
<FN>
<F1>PP&E IS SHOWN NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AS REPORTED WITHIN THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K ON THE BALANCE SHEET
<F2>IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128 "EARNINGS PER SHARE-BASIC" IS REPORTED AS
THE VALUE FOR EPS-PRIMARY TAG AND "EARNINGS PER SHARE-DILUTED" IS REPORTED AS
THE VALUE FOR EPS-DILUTED TAG
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00539

- CV

EX PARTE Roberto Pasquale

- Gualtier PETITTO

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17655A

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

On June 5, 2019, this court issue d an opinion and judgment in this appeal. Appellant

Roberto Pasquale

- Gaultier Petitto timely filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for e n banc

reconsideration. We DENY Appellant’s motion for rehearing , but acting sua sponte to clarify the

applicable analysis, we withdraw our June 5, 2019 opinion and judgment and substitute th e o pinion

and judgment of this date in their stead.

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we AFFIRM the trial court’s order

DENYING Appellant Robert Pasquale

- Gualtier Petitto’s petition for expunction.

Appellant ’ s motio n for en banc reconsideration is moot.

SIGNED July 31 , 2019.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2254 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2635 Napa Street in Vallejo, California, as 

the ‘‘Janet Capello Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2254 EH

1 SECTION 1. JANET CAPELLO POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 2635 Napa Street in Vallejo, 

4 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Janet 

5 Capello Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Janet Capello Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 

2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2254 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostOffice Building’’. Vallejo, California, as the ‘‘Janet Capello Post al Service located at 2635 Napa Street in