alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90042-90043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29760]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-225 Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and 
Battery Systems Plenary

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-225 Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and 
Battery Systems Plenary.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-225 Rechargeable Lithium Batteries 
and Battery Systems Plenary.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 07, 2017 09:00 a.m.-05:00 p.m.

ADDRESS: The meeting will be held at: Virtually at https://rtca.webex.com/rtca/j.php?MTID=mc6516c82ecf290e34b0f1e7cfaff2930, Join 
by phone, 1-877-668-4493, Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada), 1-650-
479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada), Access code: 636 235 216, 
Meeting Password: bVxFZrm6.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Karan Hofmann at khofmann@rtca.org or 
202-330-0680, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, 
Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 
833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of the Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-225 Plenary. 
The agenda will include the following:

Tuesday, February 7, 2017--9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

1. Welcome and Administrative Remarks (including DFO & RTCA Statement)
2. Introductions
3. Agenda Review
4. Meeting-Minutes Review
5. Final Review and Comment (FRAC) Resolution Review
6. Approval of DO-311A for submission to RTCA PMC
7. Action Item Review

[[Page 90043]]

8. Any other Business
9. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 7, 2016.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17, 
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-29760 Filed 12-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
EXHIBIT 23.9

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

As independent accountants,  we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
of our  report,  dated  March  15,  1996 on the  financial  statements  of Monor
Communications Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994 and
for the years then  ended  included  in this  Annual  Report on Form 10-K,  into
previously  filed  Registration  Statement  File  Nos.  33-81876,  33-87326  and
333-00226.


                                       Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


Omaha, Nebraska
May 25, 1998
&Dgineenqr 

and Reseal'Oh 

Jonuho 

!17 dear Oapta11u. 

REF ID:A414891~ 

v 

17t April l 9 1 9 

YesterdQ 1 rooeived 101JI" letter of tbe 11th end the 

eovaral encloB'Ql"e& 111 ccnnexl.OD 91 th· the Fab19n report' about 

bNald.118 the Printing Telegra:iti Olpher. I am Jreenl.1 interested. 

ln the work you 414 on thctt deoli•l'mRt of the two measaps ln 

the same k.871 and pertlcul&rl7 itt the oaee of the messages 

which overlapped~ While 1 414 not doubt tbat We could be d.om, 

your repo:rt of e1mpl1f1e4 m&th04B la ve17 interesting m4 l eball 

be Tel? gladt at eome later date, to have 7oa. explain somethlJJS 

ot tbese nethods 111 detail. 

l think tbat the letten 1\lh1.oh 1ou prepar~ tor 'l!oui 

Chlet'a atpature amt tbe signature ot the Secretary ot war 

are sutt1o1ent]¥ mod.era te ln tom. so as not to stve otf~e 

am\ at the same ttme conve7 the ~rtmenta 1~'8B as to Just 

What i'abJ&ll sucoee4e4 1D 4o1ugo I ~ rather OUl"lou to see his 

repl1'o lf 1 t aota into JOU' hal24& t pl~a~e BeD:d me a OOPJ'o 

' ' 

l hope to aee ;vou at an esrl1 date an! talk abOllt t:b9' 

messages 10Q 4eo1pbe~ecl an.4 tb$ metho4s uae4. 

Captalra Jolm. Uanl97, 

Wing 2t Room 3260 

7th and Bo Street&, 

WQShlngton. 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 11-19-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a . 

'',
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 23, 2016

s1116

Order 

Clerk

November 23, 2016

153042

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153042

COA: 329257

Kent CC: 96-005065-FH

OTHEL THOMAS LOFTIES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 6, 2016 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the August 19, 2015 opinion of the Kent 

Circuit Court. Contrary to the circuit court’s holding, the defendant has satisfied MCR 

6.502(G) by demonstrating a retroactive change in the law. When he was convicted 

pursuant to MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(i) in 1997, he was ineligible for parole. See MCL 

333.7401(3) (1997 ed.). Now, however, he is eligible for parole. MCL 791.234(7), (10). 

The circuit court erroneously concluded that MCL 333.7413 prohibited parole in this 

case, but that statute precludes parole eligibility only when both the current and prior 

convictions are for violations of MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(ii) or (iii), MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(ii) 

or (iii), or conspiracy to commit those offenses. The defendant’s prior drug convictions 

did not rise to that level of severity because each of them involved less than 50 grams of 

controlled substances. Nevertheless, the circuit court properly denied the defendant’s 

motion, because the defendant failed to establish entitlement to relief under MCR 

6.508(D). The parole board has jurisdiction over the administration of MCL 791.234. 

MCL 791.234(7).
', 

·-~g------------------

• REF ID:A69986 • 

Jliss Isabel M. Mardock 

5233 North Sayre Annue 

Chicago .31, ID1noi1 

Dear Miss Murdock: 

"24 North George lie.eon Drive 

Arlington 3, Virginia 24 April 1951 

'!hank ,..ou tor 10ur letter or 19 April Worming me that 

70ur application for emJ)lOJDlellt had been tent.ativel.7 accepted.. 

As I indicated in IQ' letter ot 1.3 FebruaZT, I shall be glad 

to have you Y1B1t me when )'OU arrive, and am giving you 'flJ7' 

ottice addres•: Naval Securit.7 Station, 3801 Nebruka Avenue, 

N.W., Washington, D.C. MJ' ottice telephone number 11 

LI{bert;y) 5-6700, Ex. 60240, and I think it beat it 70\1 C&1l 

me before ccmil'Jg to rq office, in order that the neceS•8J"7 

arrangement• can be made tor your entrance. 

With beet wishee and expectation ot eeeing J"OU in the 

near tuture, 

Sincereq 70ur1, 

WntIAM F. FRIEDMAN 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-15-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
• 

. . ' 

Mr.. Wm· Friedman . ·. 

 -.-- ,,,- =-----------------· 

REF ID:A69~6 ., 

- April 19, 1951 

Department_· q:f .Defense · .· Armed Forces security .Agency 

Washington ~5, o. o. "· '' _, ' 

Dear. Mr .. Friedman: 

Just the other ·ctay I~ had the -plea·sur_e o·f· .knov!ing the· Araled Forces 

security Agency had tentatively accepted. m~r application for 

employment, pending -complet io_n of my application which I did not 

fill out in full. · 

The ·above informatio~ came to me a·( a tir.ae most opportune.--- I·- had pl~nned a vacation i·n California during the· fir.st thre.e we.eks in 

May but since hearing from the above have.changed my plans and am 

now heading East -:-·.expect to ·be in .Washington the first .vJeek in 

Hay and would like to take you up on your v'iOrd and hav;e a. short 

visit with you.· I- know you.are ve-ry busy and I won't take up much -~ . o'f'-Your_-:time· ·:.:..:- ho,jj-e'Ve:r-·-- ·y'ou wil i·-have t.o i·et· me·· know·-,,vhere yo~r 

office is. 

Hoping to· see you soon, I am 

Isabel M. Murdock 

6233 N. Sayre Ave·. :· 

Chicago .. ~l, Ill,.· 

' . 

,' ,:· , , 

I•,, -. ' 

-.· 

.. -

Sinc:e_rely you.rs, 

-4-d!Jf{)Jtwz,d~
**Exhibit
      23.2**




**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





The
      Board
      of Directors


Delta
      Financial Corporation:




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
      333-15835, 333-88290 and 333-130269) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-127675) on Form
      S-3 of Delta Financial Corporation of our report dated March 15, 2006, with
      respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Delta Financial Corporation and
      subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements
      of
      operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years
      in the two-year period ended December 31, 2005, which report appears in the
      December 31, 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Delta Financial
      Corporation.









New
      York,
      New York


March
      9,
      2007
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TROY TERRELL COLEMAN,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

LINDA SANDERS,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-55164

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-06447-GW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 

Federal prisoner Troy Terrell Coleman appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the

execution of his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

FILED

JUL 15 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-55164

Coleman contends that his federal sentence should have commenced on the

date he was sentenced in the Northern District of Oklahoma for retaliating against

a government witness, rather than on completion of his state term of imprisonment

in California. This contention lacks merit. The district court correctly determined

that, at the time Coleman was sentenced in the Northern District of Oklahoma,

California had primary custody over him that remained uninterrupted until the state

released him on parole. Accordingly, the Bureau of Prisons properly calculated

Coleman’s sentence as beginning when California released him on parole. See 18

U.S.C. § 3585(a); see also Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440, 445 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Coleman also contends that his federal sentences should run concurrently,

and not consecutively. This contention also lacks merit. The Bureau of Prisons

properly calculated Coleman’s total term of imprisonment by running his federal

sentences consecutive to each other, because Coleman was sentenced in two

separate federal cases at different times. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a).

AFFIRMED.
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 HanKersen International
Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Yi Tong, Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report 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 result of operations of the
Company.


May 21, 2007


By: /S/ YI TONG
    ------------
    Yi Tong, CFO and Principal Accounting Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00361-CV

OAKLAWN APARTMENTS, LTD. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2016-000101-3

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On October 7, 2016, and November 7, 2016, we notified appellant in 

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismiss this 

appeal unless the $205 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). 

Appellant has not paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2015,

2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; WALKER and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 23, 2016

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil 

Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-district 

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’

fees).
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

Government Services Corp. ) 

) 

Under Contract Nos. SP0600-11-D-4009 ) 

SP0600-13-D-4512 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 59209, 59210, 59311 

60255,60256 

Gregory R. Rauch, Esq. 

Magyar, Rauch, & Thie, PLLC 

Moscow, ID 

Daniel K. Poling, Esq. 

DLA Chief Trial Attorney 

Jared M. Miller, Esq. 

Kathryn M. Kelley, Esq. 

Trial Attorneys 

DLA Energy 

Fort Belvoir, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The appeals have been settled. Accordingly, they are dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 5 October 2017 

MICHAEL T. PAUL 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59209, 59210, 59311, 

60255, 60256, Appeals of Government Services Corp., rendered in conformance with 

the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREYD. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Consent of Independent Public Auditors


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
No. 333-45501 on Form S-8 of ENTEX Information Services, Inc. of our report,
dated August 21, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of ENTEX
Information Services, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 28, 1998 and June 29,
1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and
stockholders' equity (deficit) for each of the years in the three-year period
ended June 28, 1998 and related schedule, which report appears in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of ENTEX Information Services, Inc.

                                                    KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Stamford, Connecticut
September 24, 1998
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

98-2406.

#### Cuyahoga Child Support Enforcement Agency ex rel. Drews v. Ambrosi.

Cuyahoga App. No. 73761. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a merit brief, due June 14, 1999, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sua sponte.*
Exhibit 23.6


                      CONSENT OF NOVOGRADAC & COMPANY LLP,
                 INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-103005) of Capital Alliance Income Trust Ltd., A
Real Estate Investment Trust of our report dated February 28, 2005 with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Capital Alliance Income Trust Ltd.,
A Real Estate Investment Trust included in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for
the year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/ Novogradac & Company LLP
----------------------------

San Francisco, California
May 30, 2006







                                       31
# C_2015210EN.01000102.xml

| 26.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7627 — Centerbridge/BFF)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 210/02)

On 18 June 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7627. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7627. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2015323EN.01000301.xml

| 1.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

30 September 2015

(2015/C 323/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1203 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,69 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4598 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73850 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4083 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0915 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5245 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,187 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,45 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2448 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4176 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3903 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5939 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5034 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6824 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7568 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5921 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 328,27 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,4984 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1206 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6445 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 347,81 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9237 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,347 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 73,2416 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,712 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4808 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,9768 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,4805 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1203

JPY

Japanese yen

134,69

DKK

Danish krone

7,4598

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73850

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4083

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0915

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5245

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,187

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,45

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2448

RON

Romanian leu

4,4176

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3903

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5939

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5034

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6824

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7568

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5921

KRW

South Korean won

1 328,27

ZAR

South African rand

15,4984

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1206

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6445

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 347,81

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9237

PHP

Philippine peso

52,347

RUB

Russian rouble

73,2416

THB

Thai baht

40,712

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4808

MXN

Mexican peso

18,9768

INR

Indian rupee

73,4805

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2015341EN.01000302.xml

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7773 — KKR/SoftwareONE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 341/03)

On 7 October 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7773. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7773. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---