alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32003R1447 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R1447

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1447/2003 of 14 August 2003 suspending the buying-in of skimmed-milk powder at the intervention price **

*
Official Journal L 206 , 15/08/2003 P. 0007 - 0007 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1447/2003

of 14 August 2003

suspending the buying-in of skimmed-milk powder at the intervention price

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003(2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 provides that the Commission may suspend the buying-in of skimmed-milk powder as soon as the quantities offered for intervention in the period from 1 March to 31 August each year exceed 109000 tonnes and that in that case buying-in by the intervention agencies may be carried out under an open standing invitation to tender on the basis of specifications to be determined.

(2) Since the condition for suspending buying-in is met, it should be suspended and the Member States authorised to buy in under a standing invitation to tender for the remaining intervention period so as to continue to support the skimmed-milk powder market by fixing a maximum buying-in price on the basis of the applicable intervention price and taking account of tenders received for each invitation to tender.

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2001 of 12 January 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in skimmed-milk powder(3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2239/2002(4), lays down provisions to apply where the Commission decides that buying-in is to take place under a standing invitation to tender.

(4) The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The buying-in of skimmed-milk powder at the intervention price provided for in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 is suspended throughout the Community.

Until 31 August 2003, intervention agencies may buy in skimmed-milk powder meeting the requirements of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 under a standing invitation to tender in accordance with Articles 13 to 20 of Regulation (EC) No 214/2001.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of 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, 14 August 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48.

(2) OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 37, 7.2.2001, p. 100.

(4) OJ L 341, 17.12.2002, p. 12.
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 Regency
Resources Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jane
C.H.Brooke, 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:





a.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





b.The
information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Date:
February 12, 2010





JANE C. H.
BROOKE


Jane C.H.
Brooke


Chief
Executive Officer,


President
and Director














-1-
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 24, 2011 

p0516 

Order 

 

May 24, 2011 

142387 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142387 

 COA: 300667 

Wayne CC: 10-002234-FC 

EUGENE LANARD PEGUIES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 99.1


     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  filing  of the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the
Quarter  Ended  September  30, 2002 (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.


Dated: November 18, 2002

                                 /s/  SEBASTIAN E. CASSETTA
                                ------------------------------------
                                      Sebastian E. Cassetta
                                      Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
                                      Dated:  November 18, 2002


                                /s/  THOMAS W. HALLER
                                ------------------------------------
                                     Thomas W. Haller
                                     Sr. Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
                                     & Treasurer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 16 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

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.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The President shall have power, when any bill, 
including any vote, resolution, or order, which contains any item of 
spending authority, is presented to him pursuant to section 7 of 
article I of this Constitution, to separately approve, reduce, or 
disapprove any provision, or part of any provision, contained therein.
    ``When the President exercises this power, he shall signify in 
writing which portions of the bill he has approved and which portions 
he has disapproved or reduced. These portions, to the extent not 
reduced or disapproved, shall then become a law. The President shall 
return with his objections any disapproved or reduced portions of a 
bill to the House in which the bill originated. The Congress shall 
separately reconsider each such returned portion of the bill in the 
manner prescribed for disapproved bills in section 7 of article I of 
this Constitution. Any portion of a bill which shall not have been 
returned or approved by the President within ten days (Sundays 
excepted) after it shall have been presented to him shall become a law, 
unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which 
case it shall not become a law.
    ``Section 2. Items of spending authority are those portions of a 
bill that appropriate money from the Treasury or that otherwise 
authorize or limit the withdrawal or obligation of money from the 
Treasury. Such items shall include items of appropriations, spending 
authorizations, authority to borrow money on the credit of the United 
States or otherwise, dedications of revenues, entitlements, uses of 
assets, insurance, guarantees of borrowing, and any authority to incur 
obligations.''.
                                 <all>
```
S. Con. Res. 45 Agreed to March 13, 1996

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concur- ring), That the rotunda of the United States Capitol is hereby

authorized to be used on May 2, 1996, at 2 o’clock post meridian

for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to Reverend

and Mrs. Billy Graham. Physical preparations for the conduct of

the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions

as may be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
#### Patrick CHRISTIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth State of VIRGINIA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1941

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

Patrick O. Christian, Appellant Pro Se.

*247Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Christian appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Christian v. Virginia,*No. 3:17-cv-00536-HEH, 2017 WL 4484255 (E.D. Va. Aug. 11, 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victoria Finney BREWTON, a/k/a Victoria Brewton Banks, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7709

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Victoria Finney Brewton, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Victoria Finney Brewton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court determined that Brew-ton was not entitled to relief because Amendment 794 is not retroactive. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Brewton leave to proceed in forma pauper-is and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its text order. *United States v. Brewton,*No. 3:12-cr-00399-FDW-1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2016). 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*
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Mark D.Gibson, certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of HFF, Inc.; and 

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 report. 

Dated: April 30, 2019 

 
By: 
/s/ Mark D. Gibson
 Mark D. Gibson 
*Chief Executive Officer*

*(PrincipalExecutive Officer)*
**
**POPULAR
      MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.**





Officer's
      Certificate





Annual
      Statement of Servicer





Popular
      ABS, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-E





Pursuant
      to the provisions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above captioned
      series (the “ **Agreement** ”),
      the
      undersigned hereby certifies that he is an officer of Popular Mortgage
      Servicing, Inc. (the “ **Servicer** ”),
      and
      does hereby further certify that:





1.   A
      review
      of the Servicer’s activities during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, and
      of its performance under the Agreement has been made under his supervision;
      and





2.   To
      the
      best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all
      its
      obligations under the Agreement throughout such fiscal year.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Officer's Certificate on
      behalf of the Servicer as of this 12th day of March, 2007.











POPULAR
      MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC .






By: /s/
      Dennis J. Lauria


Name: Dennis J. Lauria


Title:  Senior
      Vice President
ECONOMIC AND REGULATORY EVALUATION

Regulatory Evaluation Form, Revision 2.5 Page 1 of 1

1/15/10

AD Title: PW4074/PW4077 15th Stage HPC Disk Cracking

Docket No. FAA-2010-1095 Directorate Identifier: 2009-NE-40-AD

Costs:

Costs per Product (e.g., engine, propeller)

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

WorkhoursLabor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Replacement Disk 0.0 $ 0.00 $66,000 $66,000.00 44 $2,904,000

$ 255.00 $0 $ 255.00 $ 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $2,904,000

Costs covered under warranty

Special considerations for Economic Analysis: .Disks will be removed at 12,000 cycles, and the life limit of the 

disk is 20,000 cycles. The prorated cost of the disk is 12,000/20,000 = 0.6 of the new part cost. Replacement Disk 

Cost for AD = $110,000 (new part cost) x 0.6 x 44 parts = $2,904,000. Based on the fleet distribution, the 

majority of the US fleet will be removed at 12,000, and will not require an inspection.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES explain below NO 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES explain below NO 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES explain below NO 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES explain below NO 

Explanation:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric RICHARDSON, a/k/a Father, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7132

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 21, 2017

*198Eric Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Zachary Byrne Stendig, Assistant United States Attorneys, Traci L. Robinson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions.are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions. The portion of the order addressing Richardson’s § 2255 motions is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of apppealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability 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 motion 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 Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this part of the appeal.

We have also reviewed the record regarding Richardson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion and have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm as to the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART*
amendment4.htm




AMENDMENT NO. 4


TO


EASTGROUP PROPERTIES, INC.


2005 DIRECTORS EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN







 


WHEREAS, EastGroup Properties, Inc., (the “Company”) established the EastGroup Properties, Inc. 2005 Directors Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), effective June 1, 2005, and


 


WHEREAS, Section 9.1 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the Company may amend the Plan at any time, provided that the approval of shareholders would be required for an increase in the aggregate number of shares of the common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, of the Company (“Shares”) that may be awarded under the Plan, and


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has authorized the amendment of the Plan set out below,


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows, effective May 30, 2012:


 


1.   Section 6.2 is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


 


                      6.2    Annual Award Formula.  The formula for computing the number of Shares to be awarded to each eligible Outside Director as of the date of an annual meeting pursuant to Section 6.1 is:


 



	
(a)  

	
For annual meetings in 2013 and later years, the number of Shares shall be equal to $70,000 divided by the Fair Market Value of a Share on the date of the annual meeting with respect to which the award is being made.  If the annual meeting is recessed to a later date, the divisor shall be the Fair Market Value of a Share on the date on which the meeting is ultimately adjourned.







 



	
(b)  

	
For annual meetings in 2012, the number of Shares shall be equal to $60,000 divided by the Fair Market Value of a Share on the date of the annual meeting with respect to which the award is being made.  If the annual meeting is recessed to a later date, the divisor shall be the Fair Market Value of a Share on the date on which the meeting is ultimately adjourned.







 


2.   These amendments shall be incorporated into a document titled:  “EastGroup Properties, Inc. 2005 Directors Equity Incentive Plan as Amended and Restated Effective May 30, 2012.”


 


 




  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors of the Company has caused this amendment to be executed at a meeting held on May 30, 2012.


 


 




	  	
EASTGROUP PROPERTIES, INC.


	  	
By:

	  /s/ N. KEITH MCKEY
	  	  	
N. Keith McKey


	  	  	
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,  Secretary and Treasurer
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 692 

AN ACT 

To ensure the payment of interest and principal of the debt 

of the United States. 

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

•HR 692 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Default Prevention 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON PUBLIC 

5 DEBT AND SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the event that the debt of the 

7 United States Government, as defined in section 3101 of 

8 title 31, United States Code, reaches the statutory limit, 

9 the Secretary of the Treasury shall, in addition to any 

10 other authority provided by law, issue obligations under 

11 chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, to pay with 

12 legal tender, and solely for the purpose of paying, the prin13 cipal and interest on obligations of the United States de14 scribed in subsection (b) after the date of the enactment 

15 of this Act. 

16 (b) OBLIGATIONS DESCRIBED.—For purposes of this 

17 subsection, obligations described in this subsection are ob18 ligations which are— 

19 (1) held by the public, or 

20 (2) held by the Old-Age and Survivors Insur21 ance Trust Fund and Disability Insurance Trust 

22 Fund. 

23 (c) PROHIBITION ON COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS

24 OF CONGRESS.—None of the obligations issued under sub25 section (a) may be used to pay compensation for Members 

26 of Congress. 
3 

•HR 692 EH

1 (d) OBLIGATIONS EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DEBT

2 LIMIT.—Obligations issued under subsection (a) shall not 

3 be taken into account in applying the limitation in section 

4 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, to the extent that 

5 such obligation would otherwise cause the limitation in 

6 section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, to be ex7 ceeded. 

8 (e) REPORT ON CERTAIN ACTIONS.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—If, after the date of the en10 actment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury 

11 exercises his authority under subsection (a), the Sec12 retary shall thereafter submit a report each week the 

13 authority is in use providing an accounting relating 

14 to— 

15 (A) the principal on mature obligations 

16 and interest that is due or accrued of the 

17 United States, and 

18 (B) any obligations issued pursuant to 

19 subsection (a). 

20 (2) SUBMISSION.—The report required by para21 graph (1) shall be submitted to the Committee on 
4 

•HR 692 EH

1 Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 

2 and the Committee on Finance of the Senate. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 21, 

2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 692 

AN ACT 

To ensure the payment of interest and principal of 

the debt of the United States.