alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32002R2332 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R2332

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2332/2002 of 23 December 2002 correcting Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas **

*
Official Journal L 349 , 24/12/2002 P. 0020 - 0023 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2332/2002

of 23 December 2002

correcting Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas

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 Commission Regulation (EC) No 509/2002(2), and in particular Articles 26(3) and 29(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The description of the products under certain quotas in Annex I.B to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1667/2002(4), may lead to confusion. To avoid this and to guarantee uniform application of all quotas that Annex should be corrected.

(2) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I, Part B, to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 is hereby corrected in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third 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, 23 December 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

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

(2) OJ L 79, 22.3.2002, p. 15.

(3) OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 29.

(4) OJ L 252, 20.9.2002, p. 8.

ANNEX

Annex I, Part B, to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 is corrected as follows:

1. In point 4 (products originating in Hungary) the information on quota No 09.4776 is replaced by the following:

>TABLE>

2. In point 7 (products originating in Estonia) the information on quota No 09.4579 is replaced by the following:

>TABLE>

3. In point 8 (products originating in Latvia) the information on quota No 09.4874 is replaced by the following:

>TABLE>

4. In point 9 (products originating in Lithuania) the information on quota No 09.4864 is replaced by the following:

>TABLE>
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 
 This Supplemental
Agreement (“Agreement”) is executed on November 16, 2017 by and between Praj Industries Ltd. (CIN L27101PN1985PLC038031) a company incorporated under the laws of India, (“Praj”) with its registered office
located at “Praj Tower” 274 & 275/2, Bhumkar Chowk-Hinjewadi Road, Hinjewadi, Pune 411057, India and Gevo, Incorporated a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in the United States, with offices located at
345 Inverness Drive South, Building C, Suite 310, Englewood , CO 80112, USA), (“Gevo”). 
 WHEREAS: 

 

	 	A.	The Parties had executed a Joint Development Agreement dated November 6, 2015 (JDA”) under which Gevo, and Praj identified their respective roles in: (i) developing process design packages (“PDPs”)
for the production of renewable isobutanol from certain feedstocks, namely, sugarcane juice, sugarcane syrup, sugarcane molasses, sugar beet juice, sugar beet syrup, sugar beet molasses, cassava, rice, wheat sorghum and cellulosic sugars
(“Feedstock”), and (ii) providing services to isobutanol plant operators utilizing the PDPs and other intellectual property rights (“IP”) licensed by Gevo to such plant operators; 


 

	 	B.	Pursuant to the execution of the JDA, in order to enable Praj to fulfill its obligations agreed under the JDA, Gevo had in terms of a Development License Agreement dated November 6, 2015 (“DLA”), granted a
license to Praj for using the Gevo technology , knowhow and for making isobutanol at its facility; 

  

	 	C.	Whilst, the JDA was valid till November 6, 2017 , the Parties have agreed to restate the terms of the JDA and continue with their understanding till March, 31, 2018; 


 

	 	D.	To enable Praj to continue to fulfill its obligations, under the JDA, the Parties have agreed to restate the terms of the DLA and comply with the provisions agreed in the DLA till March 31, 2018. 


[Intentionally left blank] 







 THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 
  

	 	1	The DLA terms are restated pursuant to this Agreement and the Parties agree to continue to comply with the terms of the DLA till March 31, 2018 with effect from November 7, 2017. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written hereinabove. 

 

									
	Praj Industries Ltd.	 		 	Gevo, Inc.


									
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Atul Mulay
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Patrick Gruber

	Name: Mr. Atul Mulay	 		 	Name: Patrick Gruber
	Title: President-SBU Bio-Energy	 		 	Title: CEO


									
					
	Witness:	 	 /s/ Amol Smith
	 		 	Witness:	 	 /s/ Chris Ryan
#### Turuk SAUNDERS, a/k/a Turick Frazier, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER PRISON, Respondent-Appellee. Turuk Saunders, a/k/a Turick Frazier, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden of Broad River Prison, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6674, No. 17-7227

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: December 6, 2017

Turuk Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Susannah pawl Cole, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Turuk Saunders seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The orders are 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 Saunders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *195materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
AVS

Quality Management

System

Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with 58

QPM#

AIR-ANM-Q30-F7

,

Date: qecel11ber 17,2008

I

Revision

1

Record of Contacts

FDMS Docket No. FAA-3ll@2QIQ-03"6 I

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA,iRAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Person C~mtacte Date

Boeing Richard Brooks 4/17/2009

ATA Joe White I

7/15/09

I

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNL ADED

Check the Master List to Verify ThaI This is the Correct Revision Before Use
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 280

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the tragic crash of TWA

flight 800.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 18, 1996

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. MOYNIHAN,

and Mr. LAUTENBERG) submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the tragic

crash of TWA flight 800.

Whereas, on July 17, 1996, Trans World Airlines flight 800

tragically crashed en route from New York to Paris,

France, creating a tremendous and tragic loss of life estimated at 229 men, women, and children;

Whereas, according to Daniel L. Chandler, principal of

Montoursville, Pennsylvania, High School, among those

traveling on board this airplane were 16 members of the

Montoursville High School French Club, who were among

the very best students of the French language at their

school, and their five adult chaperones, who generously

devoted their time to making possible this planned three-
2

SRES 280 ATS

week French Club trip to visit Paris and the French

provinces;

Whereas the actual cause of the airplane crash is as of yet

unknown; and

Whereas the Federal Government is investigating the case of

this tragedy: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate of the United States—

2 (1) expresses its condolences to the families,

3 friends and loved ones of those whose lives were

4 taken away by this tragic occurrence; and

5 (2) expresses its sincere hope that the cause of

6 this tragedy will be determined through a thorough

7 investigation as soon as possible.

Æ
(logo) Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as ofNovember 1, 2014 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.,as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and asCustodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC as Trust Advisor, and Wilmington Trust,National Association as Trustee relating to the WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust2014-C24, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C24 **(WFRBS2014-C24)**

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activities and performanceof such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement areperformed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicing activities andperformance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018 toDecember 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling andServicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theterms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for theReporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and statusthereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, ManagingDirector 

 

Date: March 1, 2019
Exhibit









February 1, 2017


Name
Department
Dear Name:
As you know, Fidelity & Guaranty Life (“FGL”) has entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) with Anbang Insurance Group Co., Ltd. (“Anbang”) and certain other parties, pursuant to which FGL will become a subsidiary of Anbang, effective as of the closing of the merger (the “Closing”).  


Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, we were not able to make our December 2015 and December 2016 ordinary course discretionary long-term equity incentive awards to employees.  We recognize, however, that our employees are our greatest assets and we would not be where we are today without your continued commitment and contributions to FGL.  Accordingly, in lieu of such awards, FGL hereby grants to you a cash-based award in the aggregate amount of $X,XXX, subject to the terms set forth below (the “2017 Incentive Award”).  This 2017 Incentive Award is intended to compensate you for the target value of the long-term equity incentive awards you otherwise would have been eligible to receive, less the portion already paid to you in December 2016 (the 2015 LTIP Bonus).


The 2017 Incentive Award will vest in three installments on the dates listed below (each date, a “Vesting Date”), subject to your continued employment with FGL through each Vesting Date:


		
	•
	December 1, 2017 - $X,XXX 


		
	•
	December 3, 2018 - $X,XXX


		
	•
	December 2, 2019 - $X,XXX


Your 2017 Incentive Award will remain outstanding and will be eligible to vest on each of the Vesting Dates whether or not the Closing occurs.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, your 2017 Incentive Award will vest in full in the event that your employment is terminated by FGL or one of its subsidiaries or an acquirer without Cause (as defined in the FGL 2015 Severance Plan (the “Severance Plan”)) or your position is eliminated and you are not offered Comparable Employment (as defined in the Severance Plan) prior to the final Vesting Date.  If your employment terminated for any other reason, you will forfeit the portion of your 2017 Incentive Award that is unvested as of the date of such termination of employment.  
The vested portion of your 2017 Incentive Award will be paid to you, less applicable withholding taxes, on the first regular pay date following each Vesting Date or, if applicable, the first regular pay date after your employment terminates without Cause or the date you resign following not being offered Comparable Employment.  


If you have any questions about the terms of your 2017 Incentive Award, please contact Karen Krug at (410) 895-0070.  
Sincerely,


Christopher J. Littlefield
President & CEO


Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company | Two Ruan Center | 601 Locust St, Suite #1400, Des Moines, IA 50309
1 888 697 LIFE | 515 244 1199 (fax) | www.fglife.com
##### 



Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






| |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) 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 the Company.



| |                                                     
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Richard J. Townsend                             
| |                                                     
| | Richard J. Townsend                                 
| | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.1**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

Thecertification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

November 12,2008

 

CharlesT. Chrietzberg, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Northern CaliforniaBancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

a.               thatthis quarterly report  on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

b.              thatinformation contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr. |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr.     |
|   | Chief Executive Officer               |
|   | and President                         |

 

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          40,176                  40,176
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,888                   1,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,562                  42,562
<PP&E>                                           1,119                   1,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                     741                     741
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,736                  43,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,520                   3,520
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        43,808                  43,808
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,644)                 (3,644)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,736                  43,736
<SALES>                                          2,294                   5,764
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,294                   5,764
<CGS>                                              603                   1,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      603                   1,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,991                   5,485
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (471)                   (968)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (829)                      91
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                      40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (829)                      51
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (829)                      51
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)                    0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)                    0.01
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6525 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6525

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require 
                  students to undergo lead screenings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2016

 Mrs. Watson Coleman introduced the following bill; which was referred 
            to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require 
                  students to undergo lead screenings.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lead-free Students Act''.

SEC. 2. LEAD SCREENING.

    Subpart 2 of part F of title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:

``SEC. 8549D. LEAD SCREENING REQUIREMENT.

    ``As a condition of receiving funds under this Act, a local 
educational agency shall require that prior to enrolling in an 
elementary school for the first time, a student shall undergo a 
screening of the student's blood lead level.''.

SEC. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    The table of contents in section 2 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 is amended by inserting after the item relating 
to section 8549C the following:

``Sec. 8549D. Lead screening requirement.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin Robert BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7549

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 20, 2018

Benjamin Robert Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Lee Andrew Flagg, Lauren Elizabeth Perry, Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Matthew Kevin Hoff, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Robert Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing. 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*