alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32002R1650 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R1650

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1650/2002 of 16 September 2002 on the issuing of system A3 export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector **

*
Official Journal L 249 , 17/09/2002 P. 0015 - 0016 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1650/2002

of 16 September 2002

on the issuing of system A3 export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 of 8 October 2001 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1176/2002(2), and in particular Article 4(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1546/2002(3) opens an invitation to tender setting the indicative refund rates and indicative quantities for system A3 export licences other than those tendered for as part of food aid.

(2) In the light of the tenders submitted, the maximum refund rates and the percentages for reducing the quantities awarded for tenders quoting those maximum rates should be set.

(3) In the case of apples, the maximum rate necessary to award licences for the indicative quantity up to the quantities tendered for is not more than one-and-a-half times the indicative refund rate,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the case of apples, the maximum refund rates and the percentages for reducing the quantities awarded under the invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 1540/2002 shall be as set out in the Annex.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 September 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 16 September 2002.

For the Commission

J. M. Silva Rodríguez

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 8.

(2) OJ L 170, 29.6.2002, p. 69.

(3) OJ L 233, 30.8.2002, p. 6.

ANNEX

>TABLE>
#### Gregory Leon HAMMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sheriff Bryan HUTCHESON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7579

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Gregory Leon Hammer, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Leon Hammer, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012), A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hammer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 48

Authorizing the rotunda of the United States Capitol to be used on January

20, 1997, in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies for the

inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the

United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 20, 1996

Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. FORD) submitted the following concurrent

resolution; which was considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the rotunda of the United States Capitol to

be used on January 20, 1997, in connection with the

proceedings and ceremonies for the inauguration of the

President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the United

States.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That (a) the rotunda of the United States

3 Capitol is hereby authorized to be used on January 20,

4 1997, by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural

5 Ceremonies (the ‘‘Joint Committee’’) in connection with

6 the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inau-
2

•SCON 48 ATS

1 guration of the President-elect and the Vice President2 elect of the United States.

3 (b) The Joint Committee is authorized to utilize ap4 propriate equipment and the services of appropriate per5 sonnel of departments and agencies of the Federal Gov6 ernment, under arrangements between such Committee

7 and the heads of such departments and agencies, in con8 nection with such proceedings and ceremonies. The Joint

9 Committee may accept gifts and donations of goods and

10 services to carry out its responsibilities.

Æ
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 726 

To prohibit Federal agencies from mandating the deployment of vulnerabilities 

in data security technologies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2015 

Ms. LOFGREN (for herself, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. CONYERS, 

Mr. POE of Texas, Ms. DELBENE, Mr. POLIS, Mr. O’ROURKE, and Mr. 

NADLER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Select 

Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), and in addition to the 

Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined 

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal agencies from mandating the deployment 

of vulnerabilities in data security technologies. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Secure Data Act of 

5 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 726 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DATA SECURITY VULNERABILITY 

2 MANDATES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

4 (b), no agency may mandate or request that a manufac5 turer, developer, or seller of covered products design or 

6 alter the security functions in its product or service to 

7 allow the surveillance of any user of such product or serv8 ice, or to allow the physical search of such product, by 

9 any agency. 

10 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

11 mandates authorized under the Communications Assist12 ance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). 

13 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

14 (1) the term ‘‘agency’’ has the meaning given 

15 the term in section 3502 of title 44, United States 

16 Code; and 

17 (2) the term ‘‘covered product’’ means any com18 puter hardware, computer software, or electronic de19 vice that is made available to the general public. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 7, 2022 pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Open RF Association, Inc. filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Unisoc (Shanghai) Technologies Co., Ltd, Shanghai, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; and SmartDV Technologies, Bangalore, INDIA have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Open RF Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On February 21, 2020, Open RF Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 11, 2020 (85 FR 14247).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 25, 2021. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 26, 2021 (86 FR 40078).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-05098 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
|         (i)   | the accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                       |   |                                                                             |
|----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  March 17, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Michael L. Krall                                                             |   |
|                       |   | Michael L. KrallPresident / Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |

----
#### Harry T. LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; Honorable Richard M. Gergel; Stanley D. Ragsdale, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1860

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

Harry T. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Harry T. Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint seeking the return of property and the release of his sons from prison. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Lewis v. United States Gov’t,*No. 2:17-cv-00887-DCN (D.S.C. July 12, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 16

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to grant

the President line-item veto authority.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 12 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. BROWN introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to grant the President line-item veto authority.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years from the date of its submission

9 by the Congress:
2

•SJ 16 IS

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The President shall have power, when

3 any bill, including any vote, resolution, or order, which

4 contains any item of spending authority, is presented to

5 him pursuant to section 7 of article I of this Constitution,

6 to separately approve, reduce, or disapprove any provision,

7 or part of any provision, contained therein.

8 ‘‘When the President exercises this power, he shall

9 signify in writing which portions of the bill he has ap10 proved and which portions he has disapproved or reduced.

11 These portions, to the extent not reduced or disapproved,

12 shall then become a law. The President shall return with

13 his objections any disapproved or reduced portions of a

14 bill to the House in which the bill originated. The Con15 gress shall separately reconsider each such returned por16 tion of the bill in the manner prescribed for disapproved

17 bills in section 7 of article I of this Constitution. Any por18 tion of a bill which shall not have been returned or ap19 proved by the President within ten days (Sundays ex20 cepted) after it shall have been presented to him shall be21 come a law, unless the Congress by their adjournment pre22 vent its return, in which case it shall not become a law.

23 ‘‘SECTION 2. Items of spending authority are those

24 portions of a bill that appropriate money from the Treas25 ury or that otherwise authorize or limit the withdrawal
3

•SJ 16 IS

1 or obligation of money from the Treasury. Such items

2 shall include items of appropriations, spending authoriza3 tions, authority to borrow money on the credit of the Unit4 ed States or otherwise, dedications of revenues, entitle5 ments, uses of assets, insurance, guarantees of borrowing,

6 and any authority to incur obligations.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 99.1


I, John B. Taffer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Inspiration Products
Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, if any, is made known to me by others
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions);

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize, and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions, with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.


<PAGE>



Date: April 14, 2003



Jon P. Taffer, President/CEO


/s/ Jon P. Taffer
----------------------------------------------



Jon P. Taffer, President/CEO


/s/ Jon P. Taffer
----------------------------------------------





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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the unaudited
consoldiated balance sheet as of March 31, 1999, and the unaudted
statement of
income for the three months then ended contained in the report on
Form 10-Q for
the three months ended March 31, 1999 of Batteries Batteries,
Inc. and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         $   406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,250
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (609)
<INVENTORY>                                      9,736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,428
<PP&E>                                           1,344
<DEPRECIATION>                                     199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,327
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,262
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,813
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,327
<SALES>                                         11,039
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,039
<CGS>                                            6,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,624
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    296
<INCOME-TAX>                                       146
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                150
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       150
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 966

AN ACT

For the relief of Nathan C. Vance, and for other purposes.

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

S 966 ES

1 SECTION 1. PAYMENT TO NATHAN C. VANCE.

2 (a) PAYMENT.—Subject to subsections (b) and (c),

3 the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay $4,850.00 to Na4 than C. Vance of Wyoming for fire loss arising out of the

5 Mink Area Fire in and around Yellowstone National Park

6 in 1988.

7 (b) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—The Secretary of the Treas8 ury shall pay the amount specified in subsection (a) from

9 amounts made available under section 1304 of title 31,

10 United States Code.

11 (c) CONDITION OF PAYMENT.—The payment made

12 pursuant to subsection (a) shall be in full satisfaction of

13 the claim of Nathan C. Vance against the United States,

14 for fire loss arising out of the Mink Area Fire, that was

15 received by the Forest Service in August 1990.

Passed the Senate April 30, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 966

AN ACT

For the relief of Nathan C. Vance, and for other

purposes.
#### Gregory Alan ADAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW HANOVER COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; Trinity Food Service, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6866

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 21, 2017

Gregory Alan Adams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXpER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Alan Adams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to amend his previously dismissed complaint and to compel the production of certain documents. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Adams v. New Hanover Cty. Det. Facility,*No. 5:16-ct-03020-D (E.D.N.C. June 30, 2017). We further deny Adams’ motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the, facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*