alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2010265DE.01001801.xml

| 8.10.2010 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 265/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2010

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 265/18

---

Berichtigung des Beschlusses 2010/413/GASP des Rates vom 26. Juli 2010 über restriktive Maßnahmen gegen Iran und zur Aufhebung des Gemeinsamen Standpunkts 2007/140/GASP

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 195 vom 27. Juli 2010
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 195 vom 27. Juli 2010

Seite 43, Artikel 4 Absatz 1:

anstatt:

„... von wesentlichen Ausrüstungen oder Technologien ...“

muss es heißen:

„... von Schlüsselausrüstungen und -technologien ...“;

Seite 43, Artikel 4 Absatz 2 Buchstabe a:

anstatt:

„... in Bezug auf wesentliche Ausrüstungen und Technologien ...“

muss es heißen:

„... in Bezug auf Schlüsselausrüstungen und -technologien ...“;

Seite 43, Artikel 4 Absatz 2 Buchstabe b:

anstatt:

„... die Ausfuhr wesentlicher Ausrüstungen und Technologien ...“

muss es heißen:

„... die Ausfuhr von Schlüsselausrüstungen und -technologien ...“;

Seite 45, Artikel 10 Absatz 3 Buchstabe c:

anstatt:

„... Die Genehmigung gilt als binnen vier Wochen erteilt, sofern nicht die zuständige Behörde innerhalb dieser Frist ablehnend beschieden hat. ...“

muss es heißen:

„... Die Genehmigung gilt als binnen vier Wochen erteilt, sofern nicht die zuständige Behörde innerhalb dieser Frist widersprochen hat. ...“.

---
#### Pauline Moodie, Appellant, v Maureen Kehoe, Respondent.

[63 NYS3d 672]—

Order, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered January 12, 2017, which granted defendant’s motion to change venue, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The motion for a change of venue should have been denied because defendant did not meet her initial burden “of disproving plaintiff’s Bronx County residence” *(Fiallos v New York Univ. Hosp.,*85 AD3d 678, 678 [1st Dept 2011]). In her personally verified complaint, plaintiff alleges that she is a resident of Bronx County, and the summons specifies her address on Baychester Avenue in Bronx County. In support of her motion to change venue, defendant submitted only a copy of the Police Accident Report, which contained no information inconsistent with plaintiff’s allegation that she resides in Bronx County. Because defendant did not meet her initial burden of coming forward with evidence that plaintiff resided outside of Bronx County, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to produce evidence demonstrating her residence in that jurisdiction. In view of defendant’s failure to meet her initial burden, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition to the motion *(see Mejia v J. Crew Operating Corp.,*140 AD3d 505 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Gesmer and Oing, JJ.
# C_2014085EN.01001301.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (România) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani v Evangeli Paraskevopoulou

(Case C-668/13)

2014/C 85/23

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani

Applicant:

Defendant: Evangeli Paraskevopoulou

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope a bilateral agreement which two Member States entered into before the date on which that regulation became applicable and by which the two states agreed to the termination of obligations relating to social security benefits owed by one State to nationals of the other State who had been political refugees in the territory of the first State and who have been repatriated to the territory of the second State, in exchange for a payment by the first State of a lump sum for the payment of pensions and to cover periods during which social security contributions were paid in the first Member State?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).

1

---
# What DLA Disposition Services Really Does

/ Published Feb. 2, 2016
Lansing, Michigan, 
A retired Army transportation specialist has found work in Michigan thanks to DLA Disposition Services in Battle Creek, and people at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

The old vet arrived ready to work in 2014, but like some retirees hadn’t quite gotten out of the olive drab camo mode.

That’s to be expected if you are one of the Army’s veteran M-915 line haul tractors built by Freightliner to give the Army a commercial style over the road semi-truck. You’re just naturally green.

The Department of Natural Resources helps firefighters in Michigan get military hardware to support their missions thru a the DLA Disposition Services support to firefighters program. Jack Schultz with the department said the truck had everything they needed for a little rebuilding.

Sure, it would become fire-engine red and get some chrome where OD green paint had covered its steel. That’s demanding detail work but no big deal in a state where “car guys” are around every corner.

Bigger and longer things were to come for the tractor, originally built in 1993 and given a total rehab in 2009 while still in Army service.

What happened in Michigan was more than just another rehab.

Off went the 5th wheel rig. Then it was time to go long. It was time to stretch.

Around six feet of steel was added on to the frame, Schultz said, with a bearing added to support the longer drive shaft. Uncle Sam’s original rear axles and drive system were then mounted under the rear end of the new frame. 

A newly built 3,500 gallon water tank was attached, Schultz said, made out of strong poly material. A commercial specialty firm called E. Tankers from Grand Ledge, Michigan did most of the work, Schultz said. He said the project wrapped up in 2015, at a cost of $115,000. He said that was far less than it would have taken to get a new rig built from scratch.

So now the old vet is in better shape than ever, shiny and at work on the “west coast” of Michigan as part of the Montague Fire District, alongside White Lake north of Muskegon.
No. 10-5991.

#### Petitioner G, Petitioner v. Bridget Skaggs Brown, Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice.

562 U.S. 985, 131 S. Ct. 422,

178 L. Ed. 2d 329,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8178.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kentucky denied.

Same case below, 306 S.W.3d 80.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15470]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Docket 29-98]


Foreign-Trade Zone 23--Buffalo, NY; Application for Subzone 
Status, Buffalo China, Inc. (Dinnerware/Table Top Products) Buffalo, NY

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) by the County of Erie, New York, grantee of FTZ 23, 
requesting subzone status for the finishing and distribution (non-
manufacturing) facilities of Buffalo China, Inc. (Buffalo China), 
located in Buffalo, New York. The application was submitted pursuant to 
the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 
81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was 
formally filed on May 22, 1998.
    Buffalo China's three facilities (on approximately 10 acres) are 
located at 500 Bailey Avenue, 658 Bailey Avenue, and 51 Hayes Place in 
Buffalo, New York. These facilities (400 employees) will be used to 
store, decorate and repackage dinnerware/table top products. The 
Buffalo facilities will be used to distribute products both in the U.S. 
and abroad.
    Zone procedures would exempt Buffalo China from duty payments on 
foreign materials used in production for export. On domestic shipments, 
the company would be able to defer duty on foreign-sourced materials 
(duty rates ranging from 0.8 to 31.0%). The company is also seeking an 
exemption from duty payments on foreign merchandise that becomes scrap 
(3%). The application indicates that the savings from zone procedures 
will help improve the facilities' international competitiveness.
    In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ 
staff has been appointed examiner to investigate the application and 
report to the Board.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
(original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive 
Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is 
August 10, 1998. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted 
during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-
day period (to August 24, 1998).
    A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be 
available for public inspection at each of the following locations:

Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 
3716, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230.
U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 111 West Huron 
St., Room 1304, Buffalo, New York 14202.

    Dated: May 22, 1998.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15470 Filed 6-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation. Theresa Warren, Respondent, v Amchem Products, Inc., et *565al., Defendants, and J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

[69 NYS3d 622]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered on or about November 9, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against defendant J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (JMM), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In or around the 1990’s, JMM lost and destroyed numerous banker’s boxes containing the records of the manufacture, sale, and marketing of pipe which contained asbestos, a line of business it purchased from Johns-Manville in the 1980s. Although the first claim by an end user for personal injuries was not made with regard to that pipe until 2000, plaintiff adduced evidence that JMM was on notice that the records might be needed for future litigation, and thus JMM’s behavior constituted spoliation *(see Strong v City of New York,*112 AD3d 15 [1st Dept 2013]; *see also Malouf v Equinox Holdings, Inc.,*113 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2014]). JMM was well aware of the long history of personal injury claims arising from other Johns-Manville asbestos-containing products, and the Worker’s Compensation claims filed by individuals who worked in the manufacture of the pipes at issue.

JMM contemplated the possibility of litigation, having entered into a litigation cooperation agreement with Johns-Mansville at the time it purchased the pipe business, and internal memos from the 1980’s show that executives and lawyers at JMM discussed the risk-benefit of continuing the product line, as well as the possibility that its insurance carriers would withdraw liability coverage for the product *(see e.g. New York City Hous. Auth. v Pro Quest Sec., Inc.,*108 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2013]; *Squitieri v City of New York,*248 AD2d 201, 203 [1st Dept 1998]). Accordingly, the motion court did not abuse its broad discretion in directing that the jury be charged with an adverse inference at the time of trial *(see Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v Varig Logistica S.A.,*26 NY3d 543 [2015]; *Gogos v Modell’s Sporting Goods, Inc.,*87 AD3d 248 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Sweeny, Gische, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
# DLA Supplier Survey invites vendor feedback

/ Published Oct. 24, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Over 7,000 suppliers can share their praise or critiques of the Defense Logistics Agency’s contract solicitation and post-award processes by taking the 2022 DLA Supplier Survey now through Dec. 31.

The 30-question survey was emailed Oct. 24 to vendors that have conducted over $50,000 in business with DLA since the previous survey in October 2020. It includes a section for written comments and completion should take 10-15 minutes. Responses are anonymous.

DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic encouraged industry partners to share their opinions in her written introduction to the survey, adding that the biennial review was created in 2018 to help the agency understand the issues that affect and motivate industry.

“Since that time, challenges to the acquisition environment brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions, inflationary pressures, and more have made close coordination with industry more urgent and essential than ever,” she said.

The survey measures suppliers’ experience doing business with DLA in four categories: communications, effectiveness, supplier relationships, and growth and profit. New questions about inflation and supply chain disruptions are also included.

Results should be available early next spring, said Tim Stark, chief of DLA Industry Engagement and Analysis.

“We expect to receive a plethora of comments along with numeric results that show us where our vendors may have had some issues. Our supply chains will use that data to create action plans that target areas where we need improvement,” he said.

Previous surveys have resulted in DLA Aviation investing more resources in post-award reporting and the creation of an industry newsletter by DLA Energy. The agency also stood up a market intelligence team to improve knowledge of vendor capabilities and challenges.

“We’ve tried to stay in close communication with suppliers through COVID and the survey is one of the things that made us focus on that area,” Stark said. “Although I think we’ve made a lot of good efforts, especially in getting senior leaders to talk to industry, there’s still more we can do.”

Respondents of the 2020 survey rated DLA highest in trustworthiness with the lowest scores being in timely resolution and innovation although those ratings were higher than in the 2018 survey. The growth and profit potential category, which measures how suppliers view business opportunities with the agency, is the only category that had no improvement. Stark attributed the slight dip to funding challenges and the pandemic.

“We encourage all those who received the survey to respond and give us their honest feedback. We take it seriously,” Stark added.

The survey is also part of DLA’s Industry Engagement Plan and supports the strong partnerships focus in the agency’s Strategic Plan. 

Industry representatives can get more information about the survey by contacting the DLA Industry Engagement Office at DLASupplierSurvey@dla.mil.
From: Rahul Pendse [RPendse@trinityconsultants.com]

Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:59 PM

To: Land, Eva

Subject: RE: DR

- WC

- 01, PM2.5 emissions

Hello Eva,

You are correct. The PM/PM 10 /PM 2.5 emissions should be the same. Sorry for the confusion. The PM 2.5 emission for DR

- WC

- 01 unit of the Discover Sprit should be 1.44 lbs/day and 0.02 tons per year based on

24 hrs/day and 684 hrs/year operating time. Please let me know if you have any follow up questions.

P.S.

– Please confirm the rece ipt of this email since I am having email issues on my end.

................................................................................................................ Rahul Pendse

Managing Consultant

Trinity Consultants

– Baton Rouge

301 Main Street, Suite 900 | Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825

Office: 225

- 346

- 4003 | Mo bile: 714

- 454

- 0518

Email: rpendse@trinityconsultants.com

From: Land, Eva [ mailto:Land.Eva@epa.gov ]

Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 10:09 AM

To: Rahul Pend se Subject: DR

- WC

- 01, PM2.5 emissions

Rahul,

When you get a chance, I have a question about the emission calculations for PM 2.5 for the DR

- WC

- 01

unit. The detailed calculations can be found on page 194 of Appendix B in the December application. I

am not sure why for this unit only the PM 2.5 emissions are not the same as the emissions for PM and

PM 10

.

Thank you for your help.

Eva Land

Air Permits Section

EPA

- Region 4

61 Forsyth St., SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404

- 562

- 9103
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33420-33421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16246]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application to Withdraw From Listing 
and Registration; (Equus II Incorporated, Common Stock, $.001 Par 
Value) File No. 1-11362

June 12, 1998.
    Equus II Incorporated (``Company'') has filed an application with 
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to 
Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and Rule 
12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to withdraw the above specified 
security (``Security'') from listing and registration on the American 
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Amex'' or ``Exchange'').
    The reasons cited in the application for withdrawing the Security 
from listing and registration include the following:
    The Company's Security has been listed for trading on the Amex and, 
pursuant to a Registration Statement on Form 8-A which became effective 
on May 20, 1998, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''). Trading 
in the Company's Security on the NYSE commenced at the opening of 
business on May 20, 1998, and concurrently therewith such Security was 
suspended from trading on the Amex.
    The Company has complied with Rule 18 of the Amex by filing with 
such Exchange a certified copy of resolutions adopted by the Company's 
Board of Director's authorizing the withdrawal of its Security from 
listing and registration on the Amex and by setting forth in detail to 
such Exchange the reasons for such proposed withdrawal, and the facts 
in support thereof. In making the decision to withdraw its Security 
from listing on the Amex, the Company considered the expense of 
maintaining a dual listing.
    The Exchange has informed the Company that it has no objection to 
the withdrawal of the Company's Security from listing and registration 
on the Amex.
    By reason of section 12(b) of the Act and the rules and regulations 
thereunder, the Company shall continue to be obligated to file reports 
under Section 13 of the Act with the Commission and the NYSE.
    Any interested person may, on or before July 6, 1998, submit by 
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, facts bearing upon whether 
the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the 
Exchange and what terms,

[[Page 33421]]

if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of 
investors. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, 
will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned 
above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the 
matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16246 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
No. 10-5291.

#### Jerry L. Maske, Petitioner v. Robert Murphy, et al.

562 U.S. 913, 131 S. Ct. 271,

178 L. Ed. 2d 179,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6878.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
CERTIFICATION
      OF
      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





I,
      Catherine Thompson, Chief Financial Officer and Acting Chief Executive Officer
      of Vinoble, Inc. (The "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that:





(1)
      The annual
      report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant, to which this


certification
      is
      attached as an exhibit (The "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
      the registrant.





Date:
      October 13,
      2005





/s/
      Catherine
      Thompson


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


Catherine
      Thompson


Chief
      Financial
      Officer and Acting Chief Executive Officer
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2358

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide relief for non-self-generating ozone

nonattainment areas, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 3 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1994

Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. RIEGLE) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public

Works

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide relief for non-selfgenerating ozone nonattainment areas, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS.

4 Section 182(h)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

5 7511a(h)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘that does not’’ and

6 all that follows through ‘‘Census)’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32

                            Section 906 Certification


I, Richard L. Hannigan, Sr., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
and President of Voyager Entertainment International, Inc., certify that (i) the
attached annual report on Form 10-K of Voyager Entertainment International, Inc.
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Form 10-K Report for said period in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Voyager
Entertainment International, Inc.

/s/ Richard L. Hannigan, Sr.                      Dated: March 31, 2009
-----------------------------                            --------------
Richard L. Hannigan, Sr.
President and Chief Executive
and Chief Financial Officer