alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0017 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0017

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 17/2003 of 6 January 2003 amending the import duties in the cereals sector **

*
Official Journal L 002 , 07/01/2003 P. 0014 - 0016 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 17/2003

of 6 January 2003

amending the import duties in the cereals sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 as regards import duties in the cereals sector(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 597/2002(4), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The import duties in the cereals sector are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2392/2002(5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 8/2003(6).

(2) Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 provides that if during the period of application, the average import duty calculated differs by EUR 5 per tonne from the duty fixed, a corresponding adjustment is to be made. Such a difference has arisen. It is therefore necessary to adjust the import duties fixed in Regulation (EC) No 2392/2002.

(3) Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2378/2002 provides for derogations from Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 regarding import duties in the cereals sector. Accordingly, the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 2392/2002 should be amended to indicate the duties applicable where importation is not effected under a tariff quota,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annexes I and II to Regulation (EC) No 2392/2002 are hereby replaced by Annexes I and II to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 January 2003.

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

Done at Brussels, 6 January 2003.

For the Commission

J. M. Silva Rodríguez

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 161, 29.6.1996, p. 125.

(4) OJ L 91, 6.4.2002, p. 9.

(5) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 139.

(6) OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 56.

ANNEX I

Import duties for the products covered by Article 10(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92

>TABLE>

ANNEX II

Factors for calculating duties

(period from 30 December 2002 to 3 January 2003)

1. Averages over the two-week period preceding the day of fixing:

>TABLE>

2. Freight/cost: Gulf of Mexico-Rotterdam: 14,69 EUR/t; Great Lakes-Rotterdam: 23,61 EUR/t.

3.

>TABLE>
# Official Journal L 191/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 191 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5021 July 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 191

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5021 July 2007

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 829/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Annexes I, II, VII, VIII, X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the placing on the market of certain animal by-products (1) | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 829/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Annexes I, II, VII, VIII, X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the placing on the market of certain animal by-products (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Converted by EDGARwiz


AGREEMENT

The Agreement (the “Agreement”) is between NutraFuels, Inc. (the “Company”) and Nicole Archon (the “Employee”) and made on October 30, 2017.

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the Employee has rendered valuable services to the Company.

WHEREAS, the Company desires to award the Employee certain of its common shares for the services she rendered to the Company.

WHEREAS, the Employee desires to receive the Shares as compensation as set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual agreements herein set forth, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1. The term (the “Term”) of employment of Employee by the Company was December 1, 2016 through December 1, 2017.

2. The Company shall pay to Employee one million shares (1,000,000) of common stock as payment for the services which upon issuance on December 1, 2016 were validly issued fully paid and non-assessible shares.



3. Employee acknowledges she is not owed any additional compensation for the period of the Term.




Agreed and accepted.




NutraFuels, Inc.




By: /s/ Edgar Ward 

    Edgar Ward, Chief Employee Officer




Employee




By: /s/ Nicole Archon

     Nicole Archon
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NC/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

GARY L. ADAMS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-30105

D.C. No. 2:06-CR-00253-EJL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Gary L. Adams appeals from the six-month sentence imposed upon

revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

DEC 14 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NC/Research 2 09-30105

Adams contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of

his mitigating arguments, and that the district court erroneously considered

dismissed battery charges as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Adams’

contention that the district court improperly weighed his dismissed battery charges

lacks merit and is not supported by the record. See United States v. BarraganEspinoza, 350 F.3d 978, 983 (9th Cir. 2003). The record reflects that the district

court properly considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), and

that the sentence is reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); see also United States v.

Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); United States v. Miqbel, 444

F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Exela Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James G. Reynolds, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date:
April 10, 2018



/s/ James G. ReynoldsName:

James G. ReynoldsTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


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

---



QuickLinks
ck0001680232-ex101_6.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made effective as of November 30, 2017 by and between NUVO RIVERSIDE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Seller"), and SST IV ACQUISITIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Purchaser").

WHEREAS, reference is hereby made to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated August 18, 2017 by and between Seller and Purchaser, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 27, 2017 (as further amended by this Amendment, the "Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser desire to make certain amendments to the Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1.Recitals; Defined Terms. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.

2.Approval Period.  Section 4.1.1 of the Agreement is hereby modified to provide that the Approval Period shall expire at 5:00 p.m. Central time on January 31, 2018.

3.No Other Change. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and the parties hereby ratify and confirm the terms of the Agreement as amended by this Amendment. If there is any inconsistency between the terms of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall prevail.

4.Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida without giving effect to the choice of law provisions thereof.

5.Further Assurances. In addition to the acts and deeds recited herein and contemplated to be performed, executed and/or delivered by any party hereto, each party hereto agrees to perform, execute and deliver any further deliveries and assurances as may be reasonably necessary to effectuate the provisions contained herein or contemplated hereby.

6.Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be binding as of the date first written above, and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Each such copy may be a pdf copy and shall be deemed an 

 



 

original, and it shall not be necessary in making proof of this Amendment to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

 

SELLER: 

 

NUVO RIVERSIDE, LLC, 

a Florida limited liability company

 

 

By:       /s/ Gary Cardamone         

Name: Gary Cardamone 

Title: Manager

 

 

 

PURCHASER:

 

SST IV ACQUISITIONS, LLC, 

a Delaware limited liability company

 

 

By:     /s/ Michael S. McClure              

Name: Michael S. McClure

Title:    President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David ROSALES-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-50315

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 1, 2015

Submission Withdrawn March 21, 2017

Resubmitted November 9, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed November 09, 2017

Brandon James Kimura, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kara Hartzler, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE,..Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

California Health and Safety Code section 11352(a) is divisible. United States v. Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The district court didn’t err by enhancing Rosales’s sentence. See United States v. Rosales-Aguilar, 818 F.3d 965, 973 (9th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule'36-3.
May 27, 2015 

 

Mr. Matthew Gorajek 

8 Spruce Court 

Highstown, NJ 08520 

Dear Mr. Gorajek: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 16, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1054), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Powerhouse  Technologies  Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
David R. Wells,  Vice  President  Finance  Operations  (Principal  Financial and
Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ David R. Wells
-----------------------------
David R. Wells
Vice President Finance Operations
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Date: December 22, 2004

                                      -11-
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.9

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 Quarterly Report of QualMark Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
D. Johnston, President & Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 12(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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.


/s/ Charles D. Johnston
------------------------------------
Charles D. Johnston
President & Chief Executive Officer

November 13, 2002


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In connection with the Quarterly Report of QualMark Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
A. Scalese, Vice President of Finance & Principal Accounting Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 12(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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.


/s/ Anthony A. Scalese
------------------------------------
Anthony A. Scalese
Vice President of Finance & Principal Accounting Officer
November 13, 2002
Parraguirre J. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA EDWARD WHITE, Petitioner, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. No. 84863 

# FILE

ORDER DENYING PETITION CL ERK This is a pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted). Petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other documentation that would support his claims for relief. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition").

Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty Stiglich

## A&fbc,0 JSUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A a4W1D 

# z-cc: Edward White Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA tO) 1947A 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damon Emanuel ELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7562

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 27, 2018

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28. U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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 Elliott 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*
----

Information procedure — Technical rules

(2005/C 34/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services. (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37; OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18).

Notifications of draft national technical rules received by the Commission

The Commission draws attention to the judgement delivered on 30 April 1996 in the ‘CIA Security’ case (C-194/94 — ECR I, p. 2201), in which the Court of Justice ruled that Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 98/34/EC (formerly 83/189/EEC) are to be interpreted as meaning that individuals may rely on them before national courts which must decline to apply a national technical regulation which has not been notified in accordance with the Directive.

This judgement confirms the Commission's communication of 1 October 1986 (OJ C 245, 1.10.1986, p. 4).

Accordingly, breach of the obligation to notify renders the technical regulations concerned inapplicable, and consequently unenforceable against individuals.

For more information on the notification procedure, please write to:

Also consult the website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/tris/

If you require any further information on these notifications, please contact the national departments listed below:

LIST OF NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DIRECTIVE 98/34/EC

BELGIUM

CZECH REPUBLIC

DENMARK

GERMANY

ESTONIA

GREECE

SPAIN

FRANCE

IRELAND

ITALY

CYPRUS

LATVIA

LITHUANIA

LUXEMBOURG

HUNGARY

MALTA

NETHERLANDS

AUSTRIA

POLAND

PORTUGAL

SLOVENIA

SLOVAKIA

FINLAND

SWEDEN

UNITED KINGDOM

EFTA - ESA

TURKEY

----

(1)  Year - registration number - Member State of origin.

(2)  Period during which the draft may not be adopted.

(3)  No standstill period since the Commission accepts the grounds of urgent adoption invoked by the notifying Member State.

(4)  No standstill period since the measure concerns technical specifications or other requirements or rules on services linked to fiscal or financial measures, pursuant to the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC.

(5)  Information procedure closed.

----
David Lax <Lax@api.org>

10/24/2013 05:38 PM To Group A-AND-R-DOCKET@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135: Supplemental

Comments of the American Petroleum Institute

1 attachment

A PI Response to MECA Supplemental Tier 3 Comments.pd f Response Supplemental Comments.pd

To whom it may concern:

The American Petroleum Institute is submitting the attached supplemental comments to the subject

Docket for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Rule on Control of Air Pollution from

Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards.

Sincerely,



### David H. Lax

Tel: (202) 682-8479

Fax: (202) 682-8031

email: lax @ api

. org