alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0755 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0755

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 755/2003 of 29 April 2003 altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state **

*
Official Journal L 107 , 30/04/2003 P. 0006 - 0007 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 755/2003

of 29 April 2003

altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector(1), as amended by Comm ission Regulation (EC) No 680/2002(2), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 711/2003(3).

(2) It follows from applying the detailed rules contained in Regulation (EC) No 711/2003 to the information known to the Commission that the export refunds at present in force should be altered to the amounts set out in the Annex hereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, undenatured and exported in the natural state, as fixed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 711/2003 are hereby altered to the amounts shown in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 May 2003.

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

Done at Brussels, 29 April 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 104, 20.4.2002, p. 26.

(3) OJ L 104, 25.4.2003, p. 5.

ANNEX

REFUNDS ON WHITE SUGAR AND RAW SUGAR EXPORTED WITHOUT FURTHER PROCESSING

>TABLE>

NB:

The product codes and the "A" series destination codes are set out in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (OJ L 366, 24.12.1987, p. 1.).

The numeric destination codes are set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1779/2002 (OJ L 269, 5.10.2002, p. 6).

The other destinations are:

S00: all destinations (third countries, other territories, victualling and destinations treated as exports from the Community) with the exception of Albania, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro (including Kosovo, as defined in UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999) and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, save for sugar incorporated in the products referred to in Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 (OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29).
# L_2005284EN.01001002.xml

| 27.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 284/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 284/10

---

Corrigendum to Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 193 of 20 July 2002
  )

On page 3, Article 4(4):

for:

‘4.   In the case of a genetically modified variety within the meaning of Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 90/220/EEC the deliberate release into the environment of the variety shall be accepted only if all appropriate measures have been taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment.’,

read:

‘4.   In the case of a genetically modified variety within the meaning of Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 90/220/EEC, the variety shall be accepted only if all appropriate measures have been taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment.’;

on page 8, second subparagraph of Article 23(3)

for:

‘The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at one month.’,

read:

‘The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.’

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                         EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATION


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                              MARCH 31,

                                                      1998               1997
                                                  ------------      --------------
                                                            (in 000's )

 <S>                                                <C>              <C>
 Weighted average shares                              7,545               7,478
      outstanding-basic
 Effect of options                                      499                   -
                                                  ------------      --------------
 Shares outstanding-diluted                           8,044               7,478
                                                  ============      ==============

 Net income (loss)                                  $   860          $  (2,525)


 Basic earning (loss) per share                     $  0.11          $   (0.34)
                                                  ============      ==============
 Diluted earning (loss) per share                   $  0.11          $   (0.34)
                                                  ============      ==============
</TABLE>
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ALGONAC
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS and HEIDI CAMPBELL,

Plaintiffs-Appellants/CrossAppellees, FOR PUBLICATION September 8, 2016

v No. 326583
St. Clair Circuit Court ALGONAC COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, LC No. 14-001371-CZ

Defendant-Appellee/CrossAppellant.

Before: W ILDER , P.J., and M URPHY and O’C ONNELL , JJ.

O’C ONNELL

, J. ( concurring in part and dissenting in part ).

Plaintiffs, Citizens for a Better Algonac Community Schools an d Heidi Campbell, appeal as of right the trial court’s ord er declaring that defendant, A lgonac Community Schools, violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq , but denying injunctive relief and attorney fees. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion th at the trial court may not grant declaratory relief under the OMA. In all other respects, I con cur in the majority’s opinion. Because I conclude that the trial court may grant declaratory r elief under the OMA, I would

affirm.

The majority ably states the factual background of this case a nd the legal background of the OMA. I agree with the majority that Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees , 497 Mich 125; 860 NW2d 51 (2014), should be given retroactive effect, an d that plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief in this case. Where my analysis diverges is whether Speicher prohibits the trial court from granting declaratory relief.

While a party is only entitled to attorney fees and costs unde r MCL 15.271(4), MCL 15.271(1) provides that a party “may commence a civil action to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with this act.” (Emphasis added). The d isjunctive word “or” indicates that enjoining future compliance is only one possible form of r elief. See Paris Meadows, LLC v City of Kentwood , 287 Mich App 136, 148; 783 NW2d 133 (2010). The Speicher Court considered a similar circumstance. In that case, the plaintiff obtained declarat ory relief under the Open Meetings Act. Speicher , 497 Mich at 128. The Michigan Supreme Court did not reverse-2- the trial court for granting declaratory relief: it merely ref used to allow attorney fees and costs unless the plaintiff attained injunctive relief. Id . at 144. 1 I would conclude that the trial court validly granted the Citizens declaratory relief, but that they were not entitled to attorney fees because they did not obtain injunctive relief.

I would affirm.

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell

1 Specifically, our Supreme Cour t stated, “[a]lthough the Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiff was nevertheless entit led to declaratory relief for d efendants’ notice violation, he is not entitled to receive court costs and actual attorney fees becaus e he did not succeed in obtaining injunctive relief in the acti on, as MCL 15.271(4) requires.” Speicher , 497 Mich at 144.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6190 

To establish Chiricahua National Park in Arizona as a unit of the National 

Park System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 

Ms. MCSALLY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To establish Chiricahua National Park in Arizona as a unit 

of the National Park System, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chiricahua National 

5 Park Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF CHIRICAHUA NATIONAL PARK. 

7 (a) ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE.—There is here8 by established Chiricahua National Park in the State of 

9 Arizona. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6190 IH

1 (b) BOUNDARIES.—The boundaries of Chiricahua 

2 National Park are as generally depicted on the map enti3 tled ‘‘llllllll’’, numbered lllllll, 

4 and dated lllll. The map shall be on file and avail5 able for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the 

6 National Park Service. 

7 (c) ABOLISHMENT OF CHIRICAHUA NATIONAL

8 MONUMENT.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Chiricahua National 

10 Monument is hereby abolished and the lands and in11 terests therein are incorporated within and made 

12 part of Chiricahua National Park. Any funds avail13 able for purposes of the monument shall be available 

14 for purposes of the park. 

15 (2) REFERENCES.—Any references in law 

16 (other than in this Act), regulation, document, 

17 record, map or other paper of the United States to 

18 Chiricahua National Monument shall be considered a 

19 reference to Chiricahua National Park. 

20 (d) ADMINISTRATION.—The Secretary of the Interior 

21 shall administer Chiricahua National Park in accordance 

22 with this Act and laws generally applicable to units of the 

23 National Park System. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EPA Region 9 SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST

To evaluate compliance with 40 CFR 51, Appendix V

District Name Antelope Valley AQMD

Submittal Date October 23, 2015

Date Reviewed March 2, 2016

EPA Reviewer Arnold Lazarus

Key:

C = Complete

I = Incomplete

N/A = Not Applicable To Rule

O = Material Missing

N/S = None Submitted

 

RULE #: RACT SIP

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS (per Appendix V, Section 2.1)

(a) Submittal letter from Governor/designee C

(b) Evidence of adoption C

(b1) Adopted Date of Rule: C

(b2) Effective Date of Rule: (If different from Adopted 

Date, please state where found.)

(c) State/District legal authority to adopt C

(d1) Copy of actual rule/plan C

(d2) Rule changes indicated by underline/cross-out N/A

(e) Proof that action met procedural requirements C

(f) Copy of public notice C

(g) Certification that hearing fulfilled public notice C

(h) Public comments & agency response C

TECHNICAL SUPPORT (per Appendix V, Section 2.2)

(a) Regulated pollutants identified C

(b) Affected sources & attainment status identified C

(c) Rule/plan emissions impact N/A

(d) Attainment, PSD & other required demonstration N/A

(e) Modeling support as appropriate N/A

(f) Reliance on continuous emission reductions N/A

(g) Evidence of limits & other needed requirements N/A

(h) Compliance/enforcement strategies N/A

(i) Justification for deviation from EPA policy N/A

OVERALL COMPLETENESS C

Notes:1. Effective Date is same as Adopted Date verified by Phone Call to District.

2. Effective as of publication of EPA’s approval in the Federal Register. (District Board Resolution).

3. Effective Date is same as Adopted Date stated in District Board Resolution.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

Nos. 19-1782, 19-1794,19-1795, 19-1796, 19-1993, 19-1994, 19-1995, 19-1996

________________

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Petitioner (Cross Respondent)

v.

ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL,

Respondent (19-1782)

Petitioner (19-1993)

ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK,

Respondent (19-1794)

Petition (19-1994)

ALARIS HEALTH AT BOULEVARD EAST,

Respondent (19-1795)

Petitioner (19-1995)

ALARIS HEALTH AT HARBORVIEW,

Respondent (19-1796)

Petitioner (19-1996)

________________

Petition for Review and Cross-Application

For Enforcement of an Order of

The National Labor Relations Board

(Nos. 22-CA-125034, 22-CA-125866, 22-CA-140619)

Nos. 22-CA-124968, 22-CA-125899, 22-CA-140560)

(Nos. 22-CA-125076, 22-CA-125866, 22-CA-131372, 22-CA-140582)

(Nos. 22-CA-125023, 22-CA-125882, 22-CA-140591)

________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

March 12, 2020
2

Before: McKEE, AMBRO, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 4, 2020)

ORDER AMENDING NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the Motion by Petitioner/Respondent NLRB 

requesting a correction is hereby granted and the Court’s Not Precedential Opinion in the 

above case filed May 4, 2020, be amended as follows:

On page 10, first line, replace the word “Union’s” with “Board’s” so the phrase

reads: “we grant the Board’s petition”.

By the Court,

s/ Thomas L. Ambro 

Circuit Judge

Dated: May 12, 2020

kr/cc: All Counsel of Record
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 32

Providing for a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate on Monday,

November 20, 1995, until Monday, November 27, 1995, and a conditional

adjournment of the House on the legislative day of Monday, November

20, 1995, or Tuesday, November 21, 1995, until Tuesday, November

28, 1995.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 20, 1995

Mr. DOLE submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional recess or adjournment of the

Senate on Monday, November 20, 1995, until Monday,

November 27, 1995, and a conditional adjournment of

the House on the legislative day of Monday, November

20, 1995, or Tuesday, November 21, 1995, until Tuesday, November 28, 1995.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns

3 at the close of business on Monday, November 20, 1995,

4 pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader or his

5 designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand re6 cessed or adjourned until a time to be determined by the
2

SCON 32 ATS

1 majority leader on Monday, November 27, 1995, or until

2 one hour after the House has voted on H.J. Res. 122,

3 unless the House agrees to the Senate amendment.

4 SEC. 2. The two Houses shall convene at 12:00 noon

5 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem6 ble pursuant to section 3 of this resolution, whichever oc7 curs first; and that when the House of Representatives

8 adjourns on the legislative day of Monday, November 20,

9 1995, or the legislative day of Tuesday, November 21,

10 1995, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday,

11 November 28, 1995, or until 12:00 noon on the second

12 day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to

13 section 3 of this resolution, whichever occurs first.

14 SEC. 3. The majority leader of the Senate and the

15 Speaker of the House, acting jointly after consultation

16 with the minority leader of the Senate and the minority

17 leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the Sen18 ate and the House, respectively, to reassemble whenever,

19 in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
PAU L C . BROUN , M.D . 10T H DISTRICT , GEORGI A COMMITTE E O N HOMELAN D SECURITY COMMITTE E O N SCIENC E AN D TECHNOLOGY COMMITTE E O N NATURA L RESOURCE S 

# Conste£f£ f o ( tl) e fflmteb ^tates f ^onu t o f ^epresfentatibes ; giaaaaljmgton , © C 20515-101 0 WASHINGTO N OFFICE : 32 5 CANNO N HOUS E OFFIC E BUILDIN G WASHINGTON , D C 2051 5 PHONE : (202 ) 225-410 1 FAX : (202 ) 226-077 6

WEB : BROUN.HOUSE.GO V Septembers , 201 0 Mr . Denni s J . DeVan y Chief , Essential Ai r

Servic e Division , X-5 3 Offic e o f Aviatio nAnalysi s U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportation , S"

* Floor , Roo mW86-47 2 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Dear Mr . DeVany : 

# Dor-osr-^^2.'f/S"/- ^

r n > O 

### O Q A s th e Congressma nwh o represent s thi s region , I understan dth e benefi t o f th e Athens-,Bp nEg ^ Airport t o th e resident s o f

Athens-Clark e Count y an dsurroundin g communities . I woul dlike ta^ar e my appreciatio no f

you r effort s at th e Offic e o f

Aviatio nAnalysi s an dit s Essentia l Ai r Servic e programfor

th e work yo u d o t o hel p communit y an dregiona l airports . Th e Athens-Be nEpp s Airport generate s ove r

$1 4 millio nin annua ] economi c activity an dserve s thousand s o f

annual passenger s vi ait s commercia l ai r service . In addition , th e airport i s expandin g withplan s for a$ 5 millio ntermina l for commercia l ai r

service , revealin g it s commitmen t t o improvin g ai r

servic e in Athens , Georgia . A s apilot , th e Athens-Be nEpp s Airpor t i s wher e I learne dt o fly . Therefore , I understan dth e valu e o f bot hcommercia l an dgenera l aviatio nt o Georgia' s communit y airports . Than k yo u fo r you r support o f Essentia l Ai r

Servic e i n Athen s an dassistanc e i n requestin g proposal s for ai r carriers . I appreciat e you r leadershi p an dcommitmen t t o ensurin g smal l communitie s ar e serve db y certificate dai r

carrier s no t

onl y i n my hom e stat e o f Georgia , bu t

i n rura l region s acros s th e country . Sincerely , Pau l C . Broun , M.D . Membe r o f Congres s

TOCCO A 19 4 REMSDAL E STRtt l ToccoA , G A 3057 7 PHONE : (706)886-100 8 FA.X : (706)886-100 9 AUGUST A 424 6 WASHINGTO N ROA U

SUIT E 6 EVANS , G A 3080 9 PHONE : (706 ) 447-385 7 FAX : (7061868-875 6 ATHEN S 370 6 ATLANT A(HIUHWA ^

SUIT E 3 B AiHENS , G A 3060 6 PHONE : (706 ) 649-958 S FA>, : (706 ) 549-95P 0 PRINTE D O N RECYCLE D PAPE R
#### Daniel Webster WRIGHT, aka Abdul Hakim, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. FIELDS, Correctional Officer, CSP-Sacramento; C. Darling, Correctional Officer, CSP-Sacramento, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15851

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

NOVEMBER 20, 2017

Daniel Wright, Lancaster, CA, pro se.

David Charles Goodwin, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Jonathan B. Paul, Esquire, Jesse Rivera & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Daniel Webster Wright appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wright failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted administrative remedies or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. *See Ross v. Blake,*— U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-60, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative remedies are unavailable, including when “prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation”); *Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. *4682378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies ... means using all steps that the agency-holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1


     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In  connection  with the filing of the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter  ended  March  31,  2005  (the  "Report")  by  SmartServ  Online,   Inc.
("Registrant"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

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



                                          /s/ Robert M. Pons
                                          --------------------------------------
                                              Robert M. Pons
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              Dated:  May 16, 2005



                                          /s/ Len von Vital
                                          --------------------------------------
                                              Len von Vital
                                              Chief Financial Officer
                                              Dated:  May 16, 2005


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to SmartServ  Online,  Inc.  and will be retained by SmartServ  Online,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.