alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Eiropas Savienības C 160A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0952 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 160A |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 57. sējums2014. gada 27. maijs |

ISSN 1977-0952

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 160A

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

57. sējums2014. gada 27. maijs

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Atzinumi |
| | ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS |
| | Eiropas Zāļu aģentūra |
| 2014/C 160A/01 | Paziņojums par atcelšanu | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

V   Atzinumi

ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS

Eiropas Zāļu aģentūra

2014/C 160A/01

Paziņojums par atcelšanu

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 160A/02 | Atskaite par Oficiālā vēstneša C A Sēriju Konkursi | 2 |

2014/C 160A/02

Atskaite par Oficiālā vēstneša C A Sēriju Konkursi

Oficiālā vēstneša

2

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

V Atzinumi

ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS

Eiropas Zāļu aģentūra

| 27.5.2014 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 160/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2014

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 160/1

---

Paziņojums par atcelšanu

2014/C 160 A/01

Eiropas Zāļu aģentūra ir nolēmusi atcelt šādu atlases procedūru:

| — | EMA/AD/359: IT darbību nodaļas vadītājs, Informācijas tehnoloģiju vienība (AD 10). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/AD/359: IT darbību nodaļas vadītājs, Informācijas tehnoloģiju vienība (AD 10).

---

27.5.2014

| 27.5.2014 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 160/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 160/2

---

ATSKAITE PAR OFICIĀLĀ VĒSTNEŠA C A SĒRIJU KONKURSI

2014/C 160 A/02

Lūdzu, skatīt sarakstu ar C A sērijas izdevumiem, kas publicēti šā gada laikā.

Ja nav norādīts citādi, Oficiālo Vēstnesi izdod visās valodu versijās.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

---
#### Stephanie ROBERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15549 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed January 6, 2017

Stephanie Roberson, Pro Se

Kristin M. Rogers, Jeffrey Shaun Wilson, Jerome M. Albanese, Megan Elizabeth Gideon, Christopher Gene Harris, William Lawrence Hogan, David Logan Pool, Depak Sathy, Mary Ann Sloan, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Atlanta, GA, Anthony Erickson-Pogorzelski, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee

*987Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM;

On October 13, 2011, Stephanie Roberson filed for disability-based Supplemental Security Income (SSI), alleging that she became disabled in 1999. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued Roberson a partially favorable ruling. The ALJ found Roberson disabled but concluded that the date of onset of her disability was July 15, 2013. Therefore, the ALJ held that Roberson did not become disabled under the Social Security Act (the Act) until that date. Roberson sought review by the district court of the ALJ’s decision, and the district court affirmed. Proceeding pro se, she now appeals the district court’s affir-mance.

Roberson argues that the ALJ erred in holding that her date of disability under the Act is July 15, 2013. She claims her date of disability is October 13, 2011—the date she filed for SSI benefits. According to Roberson, when an SSI claimant is found disabled, the disability determination applies retroactively to the date of the claimant’s - SSI application. We disagree. The relevant date when determining disability status under the Act is the date of the actual onset of disability. *See Moore v. Barnhart,*405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“[A] claimant becomes eligible [for SSI benefits] in the first month where she is both disabled and has an SSI application on file.”); 20 C.F.R. § 416.200 (“You are eligible for SSI benefits if you meet all the basic requirements listed in § 416.202[, which include being disabled].... [T]he first month for which you may receive SSI benefits is the month after the month in which you- meet these eligibility requirements.”). The. ALJ did not err in finding that Roberson’s date of disability under the Act is July 15, 2013.1

AFFIRMED.

1

. To the extent that Roberson challenges the ALJ’s determination that she did not meet the criteria for disability until July 15, 2013, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination. *See Dyer v. Barnhart,*395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) ("If [an ALJ]’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, this [c]ourt must affirm....’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).
STATE EX REL. Chonquaro GREEN v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0609

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. LANDRY**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Transport Transports 

Canada Canada

 TP 7245E

 

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The following airworthiness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicate is registered in your name. ADs are issued pursuant to Canadian 

Aviation Regulation (CAR) 593. Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H, the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD may invalidate the flight authorization of the aircraft. Alternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above-referenced Standard. 

This AD has been issued by the Continuing Airworthiness Division (AARDG), National Aircraft Certification Branch, Transport Canada, Ottawa, telephone 613 952-4357.

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister in writing of any change of his or her name or address. 

To request a change of address, contact the Civil Aviation Communications Centre (AARC) at Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8, or 1-800-305-2059, or www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/communications/centre/ address.asp 

24-0022 (01-2005)

1/1 No.

CF-2009-12

Issue Date 

 24 March 2009 

Number: CF-2009-12 

Subject: Corrosion of Tail Rotor Balance Weights 

Effective: 4 May 2009 

 

Applicability: Eurocopter Canada BO 105 LS A-3 helicopters. 

Compliance: Initially, within the next 2 months or 100 hours air time, whichever occurs first after the 

effective date of this directive, unless already accomplished. Thereafter at intervals not 

exceeding 600 hours air time or 48 months, whichever occurs first. 

Background: During a periodical inspection, corrosion was detected on the tail rotor balance weights in 

the area of the attachment thread. 

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to balance weight separation from the tail rotor, 

resulting in severe vibration and consequent loss of control of the helicopter. 

Corrective 

Actions: 

Perform the initial and repeat inspections of the tail rotor balance weights and control 

levers in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of Eurocopter Canada Alert 

Service Bulletin (ASB) BO 105 LS 30-12, dated 12 December 2008, or later revisions 

approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada. 

If, as a result of the inspections above, the detected damage exceeds the acceptable limits 

specified in ASB BO 105 LS 30-12, replace the affected parts with serviceable parts before 

next flight. Replacement of parts does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive 

inspection requirements of this directive. 

Authorization: For Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities 

Derek Ferguson 

Acting Chief, Continuing Airworthiness 

Contact: Mr. Bogdan Gajewski, Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone 613-952-4450, 

facsimile 613-996-9178 or e-mail: bogdan.gajewski@tc.gc.ca or any Transport Canada 

Centre
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, R. Gregory Miller, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 3 on Form 10-K/A (this Amendment) to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2002, of California Micro Devices Corporation;



2. Based on my
knowledge, this Amendment does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this Amendment;



|                        |  |                                                 
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 2, 2004
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/    R. GREGORY MILLER                        
|                        |  | R. Gregory Miller                               
|                        |  | Vice President Finance & Chief Financial Officer
•^ 

SPRING 

• South Carolina' 

V 7 

SPRINGDALE 

Town Hall • 2915 Piatt Springs Road • Springdale, South Carolina 29170 

Phone 803-794-0408 • Fax 803-791-0567 

wivw. SpringdaleSC. com 

Mayor 

Pat G. Smith 

Mayor Pro-Tem 

Gus Manos 

Council 

Steve O. Hallman 

Nancy S. Peters 

J. Kevin Reeley 

Juston L Ricard 

Jacob R. Wilkerson 

Administrator 

Natalie A. McKelvey 

August 23, 2010 

Aloha Ley 

Acting Associate Director, X-50 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE W86-310 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Small Community Air Service Development Grant Application 

Docket OST-2010-0124 

Columbia Metropolitan Airport - Columbia, SC 

C 3 

> 

O 

m -

-^3 

-;m 

o o ^ 

C O. 

Dear Ms. Ley: 

The Town of Springdale, South Carolina strongly supports the above referenced grant application 

that will support new and improved air service from the Columbia Metropolitan Airport. The 

success of new service from the Columbia Metropolitan Airport is critically important to the health 

and growth of our regions local economy. 

The Town of Springdale has authorized a commitment of $1,000 for the purpose of assisting the 

Columbia Metropolitan Airport in obtaining additional scheduled commercial air service. The 

viability of air service improvements will provide a significant boost to economic development in 

our community through improved access for tourists and business travelers. 

We are pleased to have the opportunity to support this grant application. 

Sincerely, jlDcereiv.A 

Pat G. Smith 

Mayor
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,653,867
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,668,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,236,513
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,236,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          23,691
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,212,822
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,236,513
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,072,159
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               178,909
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                893,250
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   893,250
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .46
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Damon HALL, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11418 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 4, 2017

Brian W. McKay, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*218William Reynolds Biggs, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Damon Hall appeals the 176-month prison sentence that he received for his guilty plea conviction of possessing with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. He argues, as he did in the district court, that his prior Texas convictions for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance do not support the career offender guideline enhancement. The Government correctly concedes that the district court erred in light of *United States v. Tanksley,*848 F.3d 347 (6th Cir.), *supplemented by*854 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2017), but the Government contends that the error was harmless.

The Government points to part of the sentencing transcript in which Hall identified the correct range and in which the district court explained that it would give the same sentence regardless of whether the career offender enhancement applied. *See United States v. Guzman-Rendon,*864 F.3d 409, 411 (5th Cir. 2017). Moreover, the Government convincingly demonstrates (1) that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had it not made the error, and (2) that it would have done so for the same reasons it gave at the prior sentencing. *See id.*When the district court explained that it would have imposed the same sentence either way, it pointed to the serious nature of the offense, including the danger posed by Hall dealing drugs (in this case and previously) in an apartment area; the under-representation of Hall’s criminal history; and, as mitigating factors, Hall’s contrition and his family support.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      670
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   739
<PP&E>                                             119
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,071
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                        (101)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,016
<SALES>                                          1,004
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,006
<CGS>                                              296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   817
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (94)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (94)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (94)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Biotech Algae Workshop Agenda

Time Event Duration

7:00-8:00 am Registration 1 hr

8:00-8:15 am Welcome/Keynote Speaker (Jeff Morris) – 15 min 15 min

8:15-8:35 am Presentation #1: Overview of the TSCA Biotech Program 

(Mark Segal or Gwen McClung) 20 min

8:35-8:45 am Comments/Discussion on Presentation #1 10 min

8:45-9:00 am Presentation #2: Issues surrounding algae mass production 

and charge questions 1-3 (EPA staff) 15 min

9:00-10:00 am

Solicitation of Expert opinions and Speakers comment 

period/Discussion on Presentation #2 1 hour

10:00-10:15 am BREAK 15 min

10:15-10:30 am

Presentation #3: Issues surrounding advanced genetic 

engineering and charge questions 4-6 (EPA staff) 15 min

10:30-11:20 am

Solicitation of Expert opinions and Speakers comment 

period/Discussion on Presentation #3 50 min

11:20-11:50 am Opportunity to comment on relevant topics not included in

previous charge questions. Charge question 7 30 min

11:50-12:00 pm Closing Remarks 10 min

12:00 pm Adjournment
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,502
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,753
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,312
<PP&E>                                       1,388,582
<DEPRECIATION>                                 587,983
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 817,888
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          101,928
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   817,888
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,259
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,515
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,295
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,229
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,229
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Samuel C. SWEETING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2805

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 19, 2017 Rehearing En Banc Denied January 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Jody KULLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-416

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
coke-ex1056_423.htm



Exhibit 10.56

Amendment No. 1

to the

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated

Supplemental Savings Incentive Plan

(As Amended and Restated Effective November 1, 2011)

 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated Supplemental Savings Incentive Plan (as amended and restated effective November 1, 2011) (the “Plan”) is adopted by the Committee.

 

WHEREAS, Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated (the “Company”) has adopted and maintained the Plan to provide benefits to selected key employees;

 

WHEREAS, the Plan authorizes the Committee to make amendments to the Plan; and

 

WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Plan to include greater flexibility in the amount of the Matching Contribution provided under the Plan.

 

NOW THEREFORE, effective as of January 1, 2013 a new Subsection (c) is added to Section 3.1 of the Plan to read as follows:

 


	
 
	
 “(c)
	
Post-2012 Matching Contributions:  The Plan Administrator, in his or her sole and absolute discretion, may change the amount of the Matching Contribution described in Subsection (b) of this Section for any Plan Year beginning after the 2012 Plan Year, from time to time with respect to payroll periods subsequent to the adoption of such change; provided, however, that any such change may not cause an increase to the Matching Contribution described in Subsection (b) of this Section.”




 

The Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated Supplemental Savings Incentive Plan (as amended and restated effective November 1, 2011), as amended by this Amendment No. 1, is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.

 


	
 
	
Compensation Committee of the Board of

	
 
	
Directors of Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

Consolidated

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Umesh Kasbekar

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Umesh Kasbekar




 

Date: May 31, 2013