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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28758]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0002; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-46]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Umatilla, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule: correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects the geographic coordinates in the 
airspace description of a final rule, published in the Federal Register 
on August 23, 2013, establishing controlled airspace at Umatilla 
Municipal Airport, Umatilla, FL.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual 
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support 
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. 
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History

    On August 23, 2013, the FAA published a final rule in the Federal 
Register establishing Class E airspace at Umatilla Municipal Airport, 
Umatilla, FL (78 FR 52425). After publication, the FAA found that the 
geographic coordinates of the airport were incorrect. The longitude 
coordinate is corrected from ``long. 82[deg]39'07'' W.'' to ``long. 
81[deg]39'07'' W.''

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, amendatory 
instruction 2 and the geographic coordinates listed in the airspace 
designation of the Class E airspace for Umatilla Municipal Airport, 
Umatilla, FL, as published in the Federal Register of August 23, 2013, 
(78 FR 52425), FR Doc. 2013-20512, are corrected as follows:

PART 71 [AMENDED]

0
1. On page 52425, column 3, revise amendatory instruction 2 to read: 
The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 
Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting 
Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, is 
amended as follows:

ASO FL E5 Umatilla, FL [Corrected]

0
2. On page 52425, column 3, line 59, remove, ``lat. 28[deg]55'27'' N., 
long. 82[deg]39'07'' W'', and insert ``lat. 28[deg]55'27'' N., long. 
81[deg]39'07'' W''.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 20, 2013.
Kip B. Johns,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-28758 Filed 11-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
# EUR-Lex - 32003R1660 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R1660

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1660/2003 of 19 September 2003 amending the specification of a name appearing in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (Ossau-Iraty) **

*
Official Journal L 234 , 20/09/2003 P. 0010 - 0011 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1660/2003

of 19 September 2003

amending the specification of a name appearing in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (Ossau-Iraty)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2003(2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) In accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, the French authorities have requested in respect of the name "Ossau-Iraty", registered as a protected designation of origin by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1571/2003(4), the amendment of the method of production and of the national legal requirements.

(2) Following examination of this request for amendment, it has been decided that the amendments concerned are not minor.

(3) In accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 and since the amendments are not minor, the Article 6 procedure applies mutatis mutandis.

(4) It has been decided that the amendments in this case comply with Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. No statement of objection, within the meaning of Article 7 of the Regulation, has been sent to the Commission following the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union(5) of the amendments.

(5) Consequently, these amendments must be registered and published in the Official Journal of the European Union,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The amendments set out in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby registered and published in accordance with Article 6(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 September 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 99, 17.4.2003, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 224, 6.9.2003, p. 17.

(5) OJ C 252, 12.9.2001, p. 16 (Ossau-Iraty).

ANNEX

FRANCE

Ossau-Iraty

Method of production:

The authorised breeds of sheep are specified: Basque-béarnaise or Manech black or red head (in place of: "traditional breeds").

National requirements:

For: "Decree of 29 December 1986",

read: "Decree on the designation of origin 'Ossau-Iraty'".
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Euro Group of Companies, Inc.
(formerly ICT Technologies, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

     (1)  The Report of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
          section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

                                            /s/  Andrew Eracleous
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Andrew Eracleous
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

November 25, 2009
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 24 ,

2022
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00267

- CV

ANETRAL HALL , Appellant

V.
WILMINGTON SAVINGS F UND SOCIETY, FSB , Appellee
On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law N o . 4

Ha r ris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1180654

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed April 1 , 2022. On May 5, 2022, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.
We dismis s the a

ppeal

. PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Wilson.
# EUR-Lex - 32002R1094 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R1094

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1094/2002 of 24 June 2002 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables **

*
Official Journal L 166 , 25/06/2002 P. 0002 - 0003 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1094/2002

of 24 June 2002

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/98(2), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 June 2002.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 June 2002.

For the Commission

J. M. Silva Rodríguez

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.

(2) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 4.

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 24 June 2002 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

>TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from MoneyGram
Payment Systems, Inc.'s Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 1998 and is qualified
entirely by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS          
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998     
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998     
<CASH>                                              50,848     
<SECURITIES>                                        11,440     
<RECEIVABLES>                                       14,624     
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0     
<INVENTORY>                                              0     
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    78,127     
<PP&E>                                              12,839     
<DEPRECIATION>                                       9,427     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     173,986     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               69,698     
<BONDS>                                                  0     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0     
<PREFERRED>                                              0     
<COMMON>                                               166     
<OTHER-SE>                                         101,453     
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       173,986     
<SALES>                                                  0     
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    34,795     
<CGS>                                                    0     
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       31,953     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      2,842     
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,080     
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  1,762     
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0     
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0     
<CHANGES>                                                0     
<NET-INCOME>                                         1,762     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .11   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .11   
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-5022

ANTHONY MAURICE LYNCH, a/k/a

ANT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins.

Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-00-7)

Submitted: July 18, 2002

Decided: August 21, 2002

Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Richard W. Shryock, Jr., R. MIKE MULLENS & ASSOCIATES,

Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United

States Attorney, Sherry L. Muncy, Assistant United States Attorney,

Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Anthony Maurice Lynch appeals his 210 month sentence pursuant

to his guilty plea to aiding and abetting crack cocaine distribution, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994), and distribution of crack cocaine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a) (West 1999 & Supp. 2002). After

pleading guilty, while released on bond, Lynch committed two criminal offenses in Florida, driving under the influence and petit retail

theft, pleading guilty to both crimes. The district court denied Lynch

an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, and sentenced him to

210 months incarceration and three years of supervised release. Lynch

appeals. 

On appeal, Lynch asserts the district court erred in denying him an

adjustment for acceptance of responsibility based on his unrelated

criminal conduct. The district court’s determination regarding acceptance of responsibility is factual, and we review it with great deference for clear error. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1,

comment. (n.5) (2000); United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th

Cir. 1999). Lynch’s claim is meritless; his failure to voluntarily withdraw from criminal conduct establishes the district court did not err

in denying him an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. USSG

§ 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(b)). 

Accordingly, we affirm Lynch’s sentence. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. LYNCH
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         224,025                 263,785
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,572                   3,139
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,422)                   (412)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,706                   6,141
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               240,223                 410,674
<PP&E>                                         341,490                 326,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,997                  37,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 820,567                 859,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,732                 190,518
<BONDS>                                        500,000                 500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (420,595)               (405,236)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   820,567                 859,157
<SALES>                                        393,624                 345,378
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               393,624                 345,378
<CGS>                                         (20,269)                (14,673)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (271,434)               (250,063)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (27,072)                (34,802)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (414)                   (147)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (23,159)                (25,616)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,703                  33,133
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             59,703                  33,133
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                (39,423)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    59,703                 (6,290)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000 
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           6,381
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,376
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,290
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,376
<PP&E>                                           2,103
<DEPRECIATION>                                     957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,694
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,518
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,737)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,597
<SALES>                                          4,231
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,231
<CGS>                                            2,508
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,607
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (322)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (322)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (322)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        
















                                    

</TABLE>
#### Fowler *v.*Fowler.

No. 13194.

June 12, 1940.

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

1. “While the judge, upon a hearing of a writ of habeas corpus for the detention of a child, is vested with a discretion in determining to whom its custody shall be given, such discretion should be governed by the rules of law, and be exercised in favor of the party having the legal right, unless the evidence shows that the interest and welfare of the child justify the judge in awarding its custody to another.” *Butts*v. *Griffith,*189 *Ga.*296 (2) (5 S. E. 2d, 907), and cit.; Code, § 50-121.

2. Under the evidence, which showed that the grandparents had taken care of'the child since he was eighteen months old; that the father had served a term in the chain-gang for abandonment, and that he was separated from his second wife who had sued him for divorce and recovered a judgment awarding her alimony of $20 a month, none of which had been collected, the judge was authorized to find that it was to the best interest and welfare of the child to be awarded to the grandfather; and though the evidence was conflicting as to whether the father parted with parental custody, and as to whether he contributed to the support of the child, it can not be held that the judge abused his discretion in awarding custody of the child to the grandfather.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*455
      *George L. •& Garter*Goode, for plaintiff in error.

*B. F.*Davis, contra.
ANNUAL
      STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


OFFICER'S
      CERTIFICATE






Re:
      ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2006-4, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
      Certificates, Series 2006-4




In
      accordance with Section 3.13 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, (the 
"Agreement") dated December 1, 2006 executed by and between Merrill Lynch
      Mortgage Investors, Inc. (as "Depositor"), Midland Loan Services, Inc. (as
      "Master Servicer No. 1"), Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (as "Master
      Servicer No. 2"), LNR Partners, Inc. (as "Special Servicer), and LaSalle Bank
      National Association, (as "Trustee"), as authorized officer of Master
      Servicer No. 2, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, I certify that (i)
      a
      review of the activities of Master Servicer No. 2 during the preceding calendar
      year (or, the portion of such year during which the Certificates were
      outstanding) and of its performance under this Agreement has been made under
      such officer’s supervision and (ii) to the best of such officer’s knowledge,
      based on such review, Master Servicer No. 2 has fulfilled all its obligations
      under this Agreement in all material respects throughout such year (or the
      portion of such year during which the Certificates were outstanding) or, if
      there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect,
      specifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and status
      thereof.




Wells
      Fargo Bank, National Association


"Master
      Servicer No. 2"




/s/
      James B. Scanlon


James
      B.
      Scanlon


Vice
      President


Wells
      Fargo Bank National Association






March
      2007 - 756