alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2010173EN.01002701.xml

| 8.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 173/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/27

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 596/2010

of 7 July 2010

adapting Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 on marketing standards for olive oil on account of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Article 56 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | It is necessary to make a technical adaptation to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 (1) on account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and of Romania to the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

It is necessary to make a technical adaptation to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 (1) on account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and of Romania to the European Union.

| (2) | The second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 requires Member States to notify the Commission of the measures taken to ensure compliance with that Regulation, including the system of penalties, no later than 31 December 2002. In order to allow Bulgaria and Romania to meet this requirement, a date after accession should be established for those Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 requires Member States to notify the Commission of the measures taken to ensure compliance with that Regulation, including the system of penalties, no later than 31 December 2002. In order to allow Bulgaria and Romania to meet this requirement, a date after accession should be established for those Member States.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The following subparagraph is added to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002:

‘Bulgaria and Romania shall communicate to the Commission the measures referred to in the first paragraph no later than 31 December 2010, and the amendments to those measures before the end of the month following that in which they are adopted.’

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following 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, 7 July 2010.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 155, 14.6.2002, p. 27.

1

---
No. 12-514.

#### Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. *v.*Eurand, Inc., nka Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc., et al.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-8400.

#### Stephens *v.*Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.
#### Com. v. Smith

11/04/2015

270 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1067
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of T.M., M.M., and * From the 35th District Court

N.M., children, of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CV 18-12-534.

No. 11-21-00020-CV * June 10, 2021

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered the father’s motion to dismiss his appeal and 

concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed as to the father only; the appeal remains 

active with respect to the mother.
**EXHIBIT 32.B****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 on Form 10-Q forthe period ending June 30, 2005, of ANR Pipeline Company(the “Company”) as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Greg G. Gruber, Senior VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, certify(i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Greg G. Gruber           Greg G. Gruber *Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer* *and Treasurer* *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)*August 5, 2005     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to ANR Pipeline Company andwill be retained by ANR Pipeline Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 12-7143.

#### Meador *v.*Branson.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-8035.

#### Miller *v.*McCabe, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                     
|View History:                                                      
|                                                                   
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Re-Exports to Egypt (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                   
|                                                                   
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Re-Exports to Egypt (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        | 2,947  | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
DRILLING FLUIDS CHOSEN TO ENHANCE THE DEVELOPMENT O F THE MARCELLUS SHALE

Kayli Clements* Tom Heinz
M-I SWACO 5950 North Course Dr. Houston, TX 77072 Voice: 281-561-1446
Fax: 281-561-1372 kclements@miswaco.com

The Marcellus Shale has been slated to be the most productive shale play for natural gas development i n the U.S. over the next several years. Technically t his shale may be quite similar to that of the Barne tt, Fayetteville or even Haynesville shale, but unlike these the Marcellus is situated in a precarious loc ation for development. Mining operations in the area have exposed the land to harsh conditions and unnerved the public towards natural resource development of other kinds. Environmental and social implications of E&P operations are at the forefront, the shale unde rscores an area that is covered 60% with forest, ha s 32,000 miles of waterways and a dense population of over 4.2 million people. Current disposal options include burial onsite or trucking to a landfill. Th ese options are typically appropriate for water bas ed mud cuttings like those in Pennsylvania drilling operat ions, but new operational demands and pre-existing obstacles inherent to the shale may make it necessa ry to alter regulations surrounding disposal. The challenge is to develop drilling fluids solutions t hat act to mitigate environmental impacts, protect groundwater, return the land to its appropriate usa ge and reduce habitat fragmentation. This paper wi ll address the issues with current fluids in the area and how those challenges are addressed by changes i n fluid formulation and waste management techniques t hat are tailored to the Marcellus Shale locations.

###
No. 12-7327.

#### Mendoza *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
#### Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation, Respondent, v William Murphy, Jr., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

*560[768 NYS2d 374]

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants William Murphy, Jr., and Julie C. Murphy appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated December 19, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon their failure to appear or answer, and (2) from an order of the same court dated November 13, 2002, which denied their motion to fix an undertaking at only the sum of $1,000 per month for use and occupancy of the subject premises during the pendency of the appeal and required them, in addition to paying the sum of $1,000 per month for use and occupancy during the pendency of the appeal, to post an undertaking in the sum of $108,500 and to pay the sum of $7,000 for past use and occupancy.

Ordered that the order dated December 19, 2002, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 13, 2002, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

Vacatur of a default judgment requires the moving defendant to establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action *(see*CPLR 5015; *Liberty Sav. Bank, FSB v Knab,*281 AD2d 602 [2001]; *Citicorp Mtge. v Rodelli,*249 AD2d 736 [1998]). Here, the appellants failed to make such a showing.

The undertaking fixed by the court was reasonable under the circumstances of this case *(see*CPLR 5519 [a] [6]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1335]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

Federal Atlas Assurance Company of America

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Surety companies acceptable on Federal Atlas Assurance Company 
of America.

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

SUMMARY: (Dept. Circ. 570, 1997 Rev., Supp. No. 6.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch, (202) 874-7102.
    A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal Bonds 
is hereby issued to the following company under Sections 9304 to 9308, 
Title 31, of the United States Code. Federal bond-approving officers 
should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 
1997 Revision, on page 35553 to reflect this addition:
    Atlas Assurance Company of America. Business address: 600 College 
Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540. Phone: (609) 275-2600. Underwriting 
limitation: b $34,535,000. Surety licenses: c AL, 
AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, 
ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, 
OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY. Incorporated 
in: New York.
    Certificates of Authority expire on June 30 each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (31 CFR, Part 
223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1 
in Treasury Department Circular 570, with details as to underwriting 
limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and 
other information.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet 
(http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570.html) or through our computerized public 
bulletin board system (FMS Inside Line) at (202) 874-6887. A hard copy 
may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO), 
Subscription Service, Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When 
ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 048000-
00509-8.
    Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds 
Management Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 
6A11, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

    Dated: January 7, 1998.
Charles F. Schwan, III,
Director, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service.
[FR Doc. 98-1335 Filed 1-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
```
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 **Certification
        required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(b) and section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**
 
 
 I,
        Tim
        Hunt, Chief Executive Officer of HuntMountain Resources, certify
        that:
 
 1.           This
        quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of HuntMountain Resources 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HuntMountain
        Resources.
  
  Date:
        November 30, 2007
  /s/
                  Tim HuntTim
                  Hunt, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
# L_2011078DE.01007001.xml

| 24.3.2011 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 78/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2011

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 78/70

---

Berichtigung der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1060/2010 der Kommission vom 28. September 2010 zur Ergänzung der Richtlinie 2010/30/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates im Hinblick auf die Kennzeichnung von Haushaltskühlgeräten in Bezug auf den Energieverbrauch

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 314 vom 30. November 2010
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 314 vom 30. November 2010

Seite 35, Anhang III, Nummer 1:

anstatt:

| „1. | Die Angaben auf dem Produktdatenblatt sind in nachstehender Reihenfolge zu machen und in die Produktbroschüre und andere mit dem Produkt bereitgestellten Unterlagen aufzunehmen.“ |
| --- | --- |

„1.

Die Angaben auf dem Produktdatenblatt sind in nachstehender Reihenfolge zu machen und in die Produktbroschüre und andere mit dem Produkt bereitgestellten Unterlagen aufzunehmen.“

muss es heißen:

| „1. | Die Angaben auf dem Produktdatenblatt sind in nachstehender Reihenfolge zu machen und in die Produktbroschüre oder andere mit dem Produkt bereitgestellte Unterlagen aufzunehmen:“; |
| --- | --- |

„1.

Die Angaben auf dem Produktdatenblatt sind in nachstehender Reihenfolge zu machen und in die Produktbroschüre oder andere mit dem Produkt bereitgestellte Unterlagen aufzunehmen:“;

Seite 35, Anhang III, Nummer 1 Buchstabe l:

anstatt:

| „l) | „Klimaklasse“ gemäß Anhang VIII Tabelle 3 Nummer 1, angegeben als: „Klimaklasse: W [Klimaklasse]“.“ |
| --- | --- |

„l)

„Klimaklasse“ gemäß Anhang VIII Tabelle 3 Nummer 1, angegeben als: „Klimaklasse: W [Klimaklasse]“.“

Klimaklasse

muss es heißen:

| „l) | „Klimaklasse“ gemäß Anhang VIII Nummer 1 Tabelle 3 angegeben als: „Klimaklasse: W [Klimaklasse]“.“; |
| --- | --- |

„l)

„Klimaklasse“ gemäß Anhang VIII Nummer 1 Tabelle 3 angegeben als: „Klimaklasse: W [Klimaklasse]“.“;

Klimaklasse

Seite 37, Anhang V, Nummer 1 Buchstabe d:

anstatt:

| „d) | „Klimaklasse“ gemäß Anhang VIII Tabelle 3 Nummer 1;“ |
| --- | --- |

„d)

„Klimaklasse“ gemäß Anhang VIII Tabelle 3 Nummer 1;“

muss es heißen:

| „d) | „Klimaklasse“ gemäß Anhang VIII Nummer 1 Tabelle 3;“. |
| --- | --- |

„d)

„Klimaklasse“ gemäß Anhang VIII Nummer 1 Tabelle 3;“.

---
**Exhibit        32**

**Section        1350 Certification of Periodic Report**

**By        the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

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

| 1.   | The                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ALLETE for the quarterly period                  ended                  September 30, 2007, (Report) fully complies with the requirements                  of                  Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);                  and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  ALLETE. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                            
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Argentina (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Argentina (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 4.51   | 4.64   | 6.01   | 5.14  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4.64   | 6.83   | 13.89  | 11.57  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Cleo Realty Associates, L.P., Appellant, v Mike Papagiannakis, Respondent.

[56 NYS3d 294]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered November 22, 2016, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s guaranty of a lease is not an instrument for the *419payment of money only, because it was necessary to consult other documents to determine whether the guaranty continued to be enforceable *(see PDL Biopharma, Inc. v Wohlstadter,*147 AD3d 494 [1st Dept 2017]). The guaranty did not apply to obligations incurred after the tenant surrendered possession pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph 6 of the guaranty. While Manoli Papagiannakis’s July 31, 2015 email did not constitute the prior written notice of surrender required by paragraph 6 of the guaranty, it was nevertheless another document to which reference was required along with the guaranty and proof of nonpayment.

Defendant appears to argue that a surrender by operation of law occurred in February 2016. However, paragraph 6 of the guaranty says, “Upon surrender of possession *as aforesaid*[i.e., pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph 6], this Guaranty shall be deemed revoked” (emphasis added). The tenant did not give plaintiff 30 days’ written notice that it was going to surrender possession on February 17, 2016; on the contrary, its lawyer wrote on February 7, 2016 that it intended to vacate and surrender at the end of the lease, i.e., June 30, 2016.

Even if, arguendo, defendant’s guaranty were an instrument for the payment of money only, plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that it was entitled to the amount it seeks. Most of this amount consists of late fees, which the rent history that plaintiff submitted with its opening papers shows were 4% per month, i.e., 48% per year. In view of the public policy underlying Penal Law § 190.40, which makes an interest charge of more than 25% per year a criminal offense, these late fees are unenforceable (see *Sandra’s Jewel Box v 401 Hotel,*273 AD2d 1, 3 [1st Dept 2000]; see *also Clean Air Options, LLC v Humanscale Corp.,*142 AD3d 923 [1st Dept 2016]).

Even if the late fees were enforceable, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff ever billed the tenant for those fees (see *Rehbock v Levine,*111 AD2d 16 [2d Dept 1985]). In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, both defendant and Manoli Papagiannakis submitted affidavits saying that plaintiff had never billed the tenant for late fees. In reply, plaintiff submitted bills that an accounting manager claimed had been mailed on various dates between March 2010 and February 2016. However, each bill said, “Includes Payments Received As Of: *06121116”*(emphasis added).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.