alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32002R2224 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R2224

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2224/2002 of 13 December 2002 derogating from Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms **

*
Official Journal L 338 , 14/12/2002 P. 0014 - 0014 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2224/2002

of 13 December 2002

derogating from Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2585/2001(2), and in particular Article 33 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1795/2002(4), and in particular Article 93(6) thereof, lays down that all alcohol sold for use as bioethanol in the fuel sector must be collected from storage no more than six months after the date of notification of the Commission's decision to award the sale.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 774/2002 of 8 May 2002 opening public sales of wine alcohol for use as bioethanol in the European Community(5) opened a public sale of 300000 hectolitres of wine alcohol for use as bioethanol in the European Community to the approved firm Ecocarburantes Españoles SA. On 18 June 2002, the Commission notified the competent authorities in Spain and Ecocarburantes Españoles SA of the decision to award lot No 12/2002 to the firm.

(3) By letter dated 21 October 2002, the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informed the Commission that, because of technical difficulties and the size of lot No 12/2002, the time limit laid down for the removal of the alcohol was insufficient.

(4) In order to permit the firm concerned to complete the operation, the time limit for the removal of the alcohol should be increased by two months.

(5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Notwithstanding Article 93(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000, the removal from storage of lot No 12/2002 referred to in Regulation (EC) No 774/2002 and awarded on 18 June 2002 must be completed before 18 February 2003.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 13 December 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 345, 29.12.2001, p. 10.

(3) OJ L 194, 31.7.2000, p. 45.

(4) OJ L 272, 10.10.2002, p. 15.

(5) OJ L 123, 9.5.2002, p. 17.
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 437

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I

No. CR-14-364

DELBERT RAYMOND PRICE

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-2013-1576-1]

HONORABLE WILLIAM A. STOREY,

JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO

WITHDRAW DENIED

DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge

Delbert Price was tried by the court as an habitual offender and found guilty of the

offense of theft of a rented vehicle. He was sentenced to thirty years in the Arkansas

Department of Correction, with twenty-four of the thirty years suspended. A timely notice

of appeal was filed. 

 In Price v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 173, we denied counsel’s first motion to withdraw

and ordered a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum because we found deficiencies. In

this second attempt, Price’s counsel again seeks to withdraw, asserting that an appeal in this

case would be wholly without merit. She has filed another motion and brief, purportedly

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the

Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Because deficiencies remain in this second

attempt to withdraw, we again deny the motion and order rebriefing. As we explained in
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 437

Price, supra, an attorney attempting to withdraw from a criminal appeal is obligated to list

every adverse ruling and explain how each ruling could provide no meritorious grounds for

reversal. Even a single omission from a no-merit brief necessarily requires rebriefing. See also

Weaver v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 34.

Here, our independent review of the record reveals that at least three adverse rulings

have still not been listed and addressed by counsel. Moreover, in addressing the adverse

rulings, including the denials of the motions for directed verdict, counsel must fully explain

why the trial court’s rulings could provide no meritorious grounds for appeal. Our mention

of certain deficiencies does not in any way mean that there are no other adverse rulings that

were omitted or that the record has been adequately abstracted, the addendum properly

prepared, or the issues properly addressed. It is counsel’s responsibility to comply with the

requirements for submitting a no-merit brief. 

Counsel is directed to file a compliant abstract, brief, and addendum within fifteen

days from the date of this opinion, and, before doing so, we strongly encourage counsel to

carefully review the Anders case, supra, and our Rule 4-3(k) concerning the requirements for

submitting a no-merit brief. As noted in Weaver, supra, repeated failures to comply with the

requirements for filing a no-merit brief will be referred to the Committee on Professional

Conduct.

Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied. 

HARRISON and KINARD, JJ., agree.

Camille Edmison-Wilhelmi, for appellant.

No response.

2
# EUR-Lex - 32001R1965 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R1965

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1965/2001 of 8 October 2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2807/83 laying down detailed rules for recording Member States' catches of fish **

*
Official Journal L 268 , 09/10/2001 P. 0023 - 0023 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1965/2001

of 8 October 2001

amending Regulation (EEC) No 2807/83 laying down detailed rules for recording Member States' catches of fish

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2846/98(2), and in particular Article 6(8) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 requires masters of Community fishing vessels whose overall length is equal to or more than 10 metres to keep a logbook. The fishing vessels to which this requirement applies should therefore be clearly specified in Annexes IV and V to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2807/83 of 22 September 1983 laying down detailed rules for recording Member States' catches of fish(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2737/1999(4).

(2) Annex VIIIa to Regulation (EEC) No 2807/83 lists the radio stations through which Community fishing vessels transmit certain messages. The French and German radio stations listed in this Annex have definitively ceased operating. The references to them should therefore be removed from the Annex in question.

(3) It is therefore necessary to amend Regulation (EEC) No 2807/83 to reflect this.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EEC) No 2807/83 is amended as follows:

1. Point 2.1.1 of Annexes IV and V is replaced by the following: "2.1.1. Vessels required to keep a logbook

Masters of Community fishing vessels whose overall length is equal to or more than 10 metres shall keep a logbook.

Masters of Community fishing vessels whose overall length is less than 10 metres shall also keep a logbook if the Member State under whose flag the vessel operates or in which it is registered so requires."

2. The following lines are deleted from Annex VIIIa:

">TABLE>"

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 8 October 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 358, 31.12.1998, p. 5.

(3) OJ L 276, 10.10.1983, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 328, 22.12.1999, p. 54.
Opinion issued November 26 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 0 0 813
- CV

——————————— IN RE LTP REAL ESTATE, LLC , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 5, 2013, Relator LTP Real Estate, LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandamus as Moot. No opinion has issued and although appellants did not include a certificate of conference in their motion, more than 10 days have passed and no party has responded to the motion. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a). Accordingly, w e d ismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot

.2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6221
ENGRAM M. BELLAMY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL M. CLATTERBUCK, Magistrate, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1133) Submitted: November 17, 2003 Decided: May 26, 2004 Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Engram M. Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Engram M. Bellamy appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Bellamy’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. SeeBellamy v. Clatterbuck , No. CA-02-1133 (W.D. Va. Nov. 12, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7546

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRYL LERON GILL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-96-584, CA-99-2610-0-19) Submitted: February 29, 2000 Decided: March 20, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darryl Leron Gill, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Darryl Leron Gill appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Gill’s motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and find the dismissal proper because Gill failed to demonstrate that his constitutional rights were violated or that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance at trial. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 74 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 74

        To provide for a change in the enrollment of H.R. 3539.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 3, 1996

  Mr. Brown submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                  ordered to lie over, under the rule

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
        To provide for a change in the enrollment of H.R. 3539.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the action of the Acting President pro tempore of the Senate and 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives in signing the bill (H.R. 
3539) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs of 
the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes, is 
rescinded and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall, in the 
reenrollment of such bill, add the following section at the end of 
title XII:

``SEC. 12____. CONSTRUCTION OF RUNWAYS.

    ``Notwithstanding section 332 of the Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (109 Stat. 457), or any 
other provision of law that specifically restricts the number of 
runways at a single international airport, the Secretary of 
Transportation may obligate funds under chapters 471 and 481 of title 
49, United States Code, for any project to construct a new runway at 
such airport, unless this section is expressly repealed.''.
                                 <all>
```
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 56 ) IV-E-5 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM

Sheet 56 of 117P. 2 

# 03 7 

# B-^ Apri l 11,200 0

NOT E TO : Docke

t A-90-3 7 SUBJECT : Meetin g Summar y Januar y 12,200 0 EP

A Staf f Meetin g Wit

h Congressiona

l Representative s o n O n Januar y 12,2000 , EP

A staf f met wit h severa l member s o f

th e staf f o f Representativ e Macintos h (R-IN) . The following EP A staf f attended : Ala

n Ecker t an dJo n DeVine , OGC ; Elizabet h Cummings , OCL ; Bil l Harnett , OAR . Congressiona l staf f expresse dconcer

n abou t th e Ne w Sourc e Review publi c stakeholde r meetin g to b e hel dth e following day . They raise d concern s abou

t discussin g th e proposa

l o f th e utilit y Clea n Energy Group . Specifically , Congressiona

l staf f wer e concerne d tha

t an y discussio n of

C0 2 emissio n limit s (whic h wer e raise d b y th e Clea

n Energ y Grou

p i n thei r proposal ) coul dviolat

e th e KnoUenber

g Amendment . Congressiona

l staf f wer e furthe r concerne dtha

t an y EP A action tha

t wouldhav e th e effec

t of limitin g C0 2 coul d violat

e th e KnoUenber

g Amendment . Congressiona l staf f an dEP A staf f then discusse d their

differing interpretation s o f th e KnoUenber

g Amendment , an

dCongressiona

l staf f asked EP A t o mentio n concer

n abou t violatin g th e KnoUenber

g Amendmen

t a t th e upcoming stakeholde r meeting .
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 The
undersigned, Eugene Seymour, MD, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of
NanoViricides, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
 
 (1)
              the
      annual report on Form 10-K of NanoViricides, Inc. for the period ended
      June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and
 
 (2)
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      NanoViricides, Inc.
 
 Dated:
October 28, 2008
 
 /s/ Eugene
      SeymourEugene
      SeymourChief
      Executive and Interim Financial Officer(Principal
      Executive, Financial and Accounting
Officer)
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to NanoViricides, Inc. and will be retained by
NanoViricides, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 21

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas in 1995, women of America are celebrating the 75th

anniversary of their right to participate in our government through suffrage;

Whereas Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan

B. Anthony were pioneers in the movement for women

suffrage and the pursuit of equal rights; and

Whereas, the relocation of the ‘‘Portrait Monument’’ to a

place of prominence and esteem in the Capitol Rotunda

would serve to honor and revere the contribution of thousands of women: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the Architect of the Capitol shall—

3 (1) restore the ‘‘Portrait Monument’’ to its

4 original state and place it in the Rotunda of the

5 United States Capitol; and

6 (2) make all necessary arrangements for the re7 dedication ceremony of such statue in the Capitol

8 Rotunda and procession connected therewith, in co9 operation with the 75th Anniversary of Woman Suf10 frage Task Force.
2

SCON 21 ES

1 SEC. 2. The Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to

2 be used from 7 o’clock ante meridiem until 4 o’clock post

3 meridiem on August 26, 1995, for such ceremony.

Passed the Senate July 17 (legislative day, July 10),

1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 21

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing that the ‘‘Portrait Monument’’ carved in

be placed in the Capitol Rotunda.the Capitol, be restored to its original state andand Elizabeth Cady Stanton, now in the Crypt ofthe likeness of Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony,
Exhibit
99.2
 
 CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-K of Vista
Dorada Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jimmy Soo, Chief
Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 i.        The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of
      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and
 
 ii      The
      information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.
 
 
 January
12, 2009
 JIMMY
SOO
 Jimmy Soo
 Chief
Executive Officer,
 President
and Director
 
 
 
 -1-
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6104 

To establish a deadline for approval of claims made under the National 

Flood Insurance Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana (for himself, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. RICHMOND, and 

Mr. ABRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To establish a deadline for approval of claims made under 

the National Flood Insurance Program, 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 ‘‘Timely Payments for 

5 Flood Victims Act of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEADLINE FOR APPROVAL OF CLAIMS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1312 of the National 

8 Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4019) is amend9 ed— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6104 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘The Adminis2 trator’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to other provisions of 

3 this section, the Administrator’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub5 section: 

6 ‘‘(d) DEADLINE FOR APPROVAL OF CLAIMS.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall 

8 provide that, in the case of any claim for damage to 

9 or loss of property under flood insurance coverage 

10 made available under this title, a final determination 

11 regarding approval of a claim for payment or dis12 approval of the claim be made, and notification of 

13 such determination be provided to the insured mak14 ing such claim, not later than the expiration of the 

15 30-day period (as such period may be extended pur16 suant to paragraph (2)) beginning upon the day on 

17 which such claim was made. Payment of approved 

18 claims shall be made as soon as possible after such 

19 approval. 

20 ‘‘(2) EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.—The Adminis21 trator shall provide that the period referred to in 

22 paragraph (1) may be extended by a single addi23 tional period of 15 days in cases where extraordinary 

24 circumstances are demonstrated. The Administrator 

25 shall, by regulation, establish criteria for demVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:39 Sep 23, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6104.IH H6104

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6104 IH

1 onstrating such extraordinary circumstances and for 

2 determining to which claims such extraordinary cir3 cumstances apply.’’. 

4 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub5 section (a) shall apply to any claim under flood insurance 

6 coverage made available under the National Flood Insur7 ance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) pending on 

8 the date of the enactment of this Act and any claims made 

9 after such date of enactment. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
S. Con. Res. 18 Agreed to June 27, 1995

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concur- ring), That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed

to transfer to the custody of the Chief Justice of the United States

the catafalque which is presently situated in the crypt beneath

the rotunda of the Capitol so that the said catafalque may be

used in the Supreme Court Building in connection with services

to be conducted there for the late Honorable Warren Burger, former

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.