alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34851-34852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16985]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


National Sea Grant Review Panel; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a 
forthcoming meeting of the Sea Grant Review Panel. The meeting will 
have several purposes. Panel members will discuss and provide advice on 
the National Sea Grant College Program in the areas of program 
management and evaluation, national strategic investments, education 
and extension, technology problems, legislative changes and other 
matters as described below.

DATES: The announced meeting is scheduled during two days: Wednesday, 
July 8, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Thursday, July 9, 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Silver 
Spring Metro Center III; 1315 East-West Highway, Room 11836; Silver 
Spring, Maryland 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Ronald C. Baird, Director; National Sea Grant College Program; 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1315 East-West Highway, 
Room 11716; Silver Spring, Maryland 20910;301) 713-2448 extension 163.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panel, which consists of a balanced 
representation from academia, industry, state government and citizens 
groups, was established in 1976 by Section 209 of the Sea Grant 
Improvement Act (Pub. L. 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128) and advises the 
Secretary of Commerce, the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, 
also the Administrator of NOAA, and the Director of the National Sea 
Grant College Program with respect to operations under the act, and 
such other matters as the Secretary refers to the Panel for review and 
advice. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

Wednesday, July 8, 1998

8:30 a.m.--Welcoming and Opening Formalities
9:00 a.m.--NOAA and National Sea Grant Office Update
10:30 a.m.--Sea Grant Association Update
12:00 p.m.--Working Lunch
1:30 p.m.--Program Evaluation
3:45 p.m.--Historically Black Colleges and Universities Evaluation 
Report
4:15 p.m.--Recognition Ceremony for Outgoing Review Panel Members
5:00 p.m.--Adjourn

Thursday, July 9, 1998

8:30 a.m.--National Strategic Initiatives Discussion
10:30 a.m.--Technology Update
11:30 a.m.--30th Anniversary Committee Update
11:45 a.m.--Working Lunch
1:30 p.m.--Sea Grant Review Panel Liaison Reports
2:00 p.m.--Sea Grant Review Panel Comments

[[Page 34852]]

2:30 p.m.--Summarization and Action Items
3:00 p.m.--Adjourn

    This meeting will be open to the public.

    Dated: June 22, 1998.
Elbert W. Friday, Jr.,
Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.
[FR Doc. 98-16985 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-12-M
No. 10-5356.

#### Melinda Loray, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 917, 131 S. Ct. 283,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7116.

178 L. Ed. 2d 186,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 933.
Affirmed as M odified and Opinion Filed May 1, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00927

- CV 

### JASON MICHAEL SPENCE R , Appellant V. 

### DEXTRAL CAPITAL, LP, AND DEXTRAL CAPI TAL MANAGEMENT FUND, LP , Appellees
On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11

- 15530

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Brown, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Stoddart
Follo wing a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of appellees against Jason M. Spencer for actual and punitive damages. The judgment also awarded $85,000.00 in attorney’s fees to Dextral Capital. In two issues, Spencer argues the trial court erred by awarding attorney’s fees to Dextral Capital because it did not prevail on a breach of contract claim and there was legally and factually insufficient evidence to support the amount of the fees. Appellees do not oppose the relief requested by app ellant. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $85,000.00 to Dextral Capital. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2 ; McNutt v. Garick Fire
Prot., Inc. , 225 S.W.3d 657, 657

– 58 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2006, no pet.) (reversal is proper where appellee confesses error); Ervin v. Wichita County Family Court Services , 533 S.W.2d– 2

– 947, 951 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Fort Worth 1976, no writ)

. As modified , the trial court’s judgment is

affirmed.

/ Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE

130927F.P05– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JASON MICHAEL SPENCER, Appellant

No. 05

- 13

- 00927

- CV V.
DEXTRAL CAPITAL, LP, AND DEXTRAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT FUND, LP, Appellees On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11

- 15530. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Justices Lang

- Miers and Brown participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: the third full paragraph on the second page of the final judgment ordering that Dextral Capital recover from Jason Michael Spencer the sum of $85,000.00 as reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees together with post

- judgment inter est thereon is deleted.

It is ORDERED that, as modified, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. It is ORDERED that appellant JASON MICHAEL SPENCER recover his costs of this appeal from appellees DEXTRAL CAPITAL, LP, AND DEXTRAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT FUND, LP.

Judgment entered this 1st day of May, 2015.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17189]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-617-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Application

June 23, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 16, 1998, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77251 filed a request pursuant to 
Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's 
Regulations to abandon an obsolete natural gas transportation service 
authorized in Docket No. CP78-494 \1\ for Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia Gas). The application is on file with the 
Commission and open to public inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, 5 FERC para. 61,173 (1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Koch proposes to abandon an obsolete transportation service 
formally provided to Columbia Gas pursuant to Koch's Rate Schedule X-
111. Koch states that Columbia Gas concurs with the proposed 
abandonment and that no facilities are proposed to be abandoned.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said application should on or before July 14, 1998, file 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance 
with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) and the regulations under the 
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission 
will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be 
taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to any proceeding 
herein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the 
Commission's rules.
    Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Commission by 
Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be held without further notice 
before the Commission or its designee on this application if no motion 
to intervene is filed within the time required herein, if the 
Commission on its own review of the matter finds that permission and 
approval for the proposed abandonment are required by the public 
convenience and necessity. If no motion for leave to intervene is 
timely filed, or if the Commission on its own motion believes that 
formal hearing is required, further notice of such hearing will be duly 
given.
    Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, 
it will be unnecessary for Koch to appear or to be represented at the 
hearing.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17189 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Com. v. Miller

12/16/2015

308 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 125 A.3d 465
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2603 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2603

To amend the Small Business Act to ensure that the Commonwealth of the 
    Northern Mariana Islands is eligible for certain Small Business 
            Administration programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2019

  Mr. Sablan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Small Business Act to ensure that the Commonwealth of the 
    Northern Mariana Islands is eligible for certain Small Business 
            Administration programs, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Northern Mariana Islands Small 
Business Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 
              FOR CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS.

    The Small Business Act is amended--
            (1) in section 7(m)(7)(B) (15 U.S.C. 636(m)(7)(B))--
                    (A) by striking ``and American Samoa'' each place 
                such term appears and inserting ``American Samoa, and 
                the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''; and
                    (B) in clause (i)(I)(bb), by striking ``\1/55\'' 
                and inserting ``\1/56\'';
            (2) in section 21(a) (15 U.S.C. 648(a))--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting before ``The 
                Administration shall require'' the following new 
                sentence: ``The previous sentence shall not apply to an 
                applicant that has its principal office located in the 
                Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (4)(C)(ix), by striking ``and 
                American Samoa'' and inserting ``American Samoa, and 
                the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''; and
            (3) in section 34(a)(9) (15 U.S.C. 657d(a)(9)), by striking 
        ``and American Samoa'' and inserting ``American Samoa, and the 
        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''.
                                 <all>
```
#### People v Green (Trameil)

4th Dept: 132 AD3d 1268 (Erie)

denied reconsideration 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.) (Appeal No. 1)
# C_2014031EN.01000603.xml

| 1.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/6

---

Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-2/07 Spain v Commission

(Case C-641/13 P)

2014/C 31/10

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present appeal and partially set aside the judgment of 16 September 2013 in Case T-2/07 Spain v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present appeal and partially set aside the judgment of 16 September 2013 in Case T-2/07 Spain v Commission;

Spain

Commission

| — | partially annul, in accordance with the terms indicated, Commission Decision C(2006) 5102 of 20 October 2006, reducing the financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund to the group of projects bearing the reference 2001.ES.16.C.PE.050 and concerning the clearance of the hydrographical basin of Júcar (Spain), in so far as it is considered therein that the use of experience as an award criterion constitutes an irregularity; and |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul, in accordance with the terms indicated, Commission Decision C(2006) 5102 of 20 October 2006, reducing the financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund to the group of projects bearing the reference 2001.ES.16.C.PE.050 and concerning the clearance of the hydrographical basin of Júcar (Spain), in so far as it is considered therein that the use of experience as an award criterion constitutes an irregularity; and

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Error of law as regards the finding that the use of experience as an award criterion is contrary to Article 30 of Directive 93/37

   (1). That provision does not preclude the use of criteria linked to the contractor’s experience at the time when a contract is awarded. On the contrary, the tenderer’s experience may be assessed, provided that it is used as a criterion that is not intended to measure the tenderer’s suitability, that it is kept distinct from the solvency requirement and that it is intended to determine the most economically advantageous offer by demonstrating a link between the subject-matter of the contract and the quality of its performance.

Error of law as regards the finding that the use of experience as an award criterion is contrary to Article 30 of Directive 93/37

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).

1

---
No. 10-6292.

#### Jesus Lua, Petitioner v. Michael Martel, Warden.

562 U.S. 1031, 131 S. Ct. 570,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8756.

178 L. Ed. 2d 417,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 365 Fed. Appx. 872.
No. 10-5073.

#### Christopher Everson, Petitioner v. Brian K. Murphy, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction, et al.

562 U.S. 1055, 131 S. Ct. 628,

178 L. Ed. 2d 456,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9027.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 902, 131 S. Ct. 237, 178 L. Ed. 2d 158, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6209.
#### Com. v. Deboise

11/16/2015

470 EAL (2015)

Denied

No. 70 EDM 2015
#### People v Waller

App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 96093(U) (NY)

denied 3/30/17 . (Stein, J.)
No. 10-6558.

#### Charles Whitlow, Petitioner v. City of Roanoke, Virginia.

562 U.S. 1067, 131 S. Ct. 650,

178 L. Ed. 2d 488,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9405,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERICA MARKUS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 260 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of March, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
No. 10-6713.

#### Amado Tamez, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 1070, 131 S. Ct. 660,

178 L. Ed. 2d 493,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9443,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM REGISTRANT'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, DECEMBER 31, 2000 AND 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                           193
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    469
<ALLOWANCES>                                      11
<INVENTORY>                                      107
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 854
<PP&E>                                         11793
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            872
<BONDS>                                         1195
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         322
<OTHER-SE>                                      3714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11343
<SALES>                                         4251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                4251
<CGS>                                           1734
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   7762
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3649)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3649)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  248
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3401)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.11)



</TABLE>
No. 10-5248.

#### Leroy Gregory, Jr., Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 911, 131 S. Ct. 265,

178 L. Ed. 2d 175,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6936.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 601 F.3d 347.
Table 33. Tuberculosis Cases and Percentages, U.S.-Born and Non-U.S.–Born Persons1

: 

Reporting Areas, 2016

Total U.S.-born persons Non-U.S.–born persons1 Unknown origin

Reporting area cases No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)

United States 9,272 2,901 (31.3) 6,351 (68.5) 20 (0.2) 

Alabama 112 86 (76.8) 26 (23.2) 0 (0)

Alaska 57 46 (80.7) 11 (19.3) 0 (0)

Arizona 188 58 (30.9) 130 (69.1) 0 (0)

Arkansas 91 51 (56.0) 40 (44.0) 0 (0)

California 2,062 386 (18.7) 1,661 (80.6) 15 (0.7)

Colorado 64 17 (26.6) 47 (73.4) 0 (0)

Connecticut 52 8 (15.4) 44 (84.6) 0 (0)

Delaware 16 5 (31.3) 11 (68.8) 0 (0)

District of Columbia 25 8 (32.0) 17 (68.0) 0 (0)

Florida 639 254 (39.7) 385 (60.3) 0 (0)

Georgia 302 159 (52.6) 142 (47.0) 1 (0.3)

Hawaii 119 19 (16.0) 100 (84.0) 0 (0)

Idaho 18 8 (44.4) 10 (55.6) 0 (0)

Illinois 342 85 (24.9) 257 (75.1) 0 (0)

Indiana 109 33 (30.3) 76 (69.7) 0 (0)

Iowa 48 8 (16.7) 40 (83.3) 0 (0)

Kansas 39 8 (20.5) 31 (79.5) 0 (0)

Kentucky 91 41 (45.1) 50 (54.9) 0 (0)

Louisiana 127 85 (66.9) 42 (33.1) 0 (0)

Maine 23 4 (17.4) 19 (82.6) 0 (0)

Maryland 220 35 (15.9) 185 (84.1) 0 (0)

Massachusetts 190 23 (12.1) 166 (87.4) 1 (0.5)

Michigan 133 53 (39.8) 80 (60.2) 0 (0)

Minnesota 168 16 (9.5) 152 (90.5) 0 (0)

Mississippi 61 48 (78.7) 13 (21.3) 0 (0)

Missouri 101 44 (43.6) 57 (56.4) 0 (0)

Montana 4 3 (75.0) 1 (25.0) 0 (0)

Nebraska 28 6 (21.4) 22 (78.6) 0 (0)

Nevada 56 16 (28.6) 40 (71.4) 0 (0)

New Hampshire 15 2 (13.3) 13 (86.7) 0 (0)

New Jersey 294 61 (20.7) 233 (79.3) 0 (0)

New Mexico 39 14 (35.9) 25 (64.1) 0 (0)

New York State2 203 47 (23.2) 156 (76.8) 0 (0)

New York City 565 87 (15.4) 478 (84.6) 0 (0)

North Carolina 219 110 (50.2) 109 (49.8) 0 (0)

North Dakota 22 6 (27.3) 16 (72.7) 0 (0)

Ohio 140 59 (42.1) 81 (57.9) 0 (0)

Oklahoma 78 39 (50.0) 39 (50.0) 0 (0)

Oregon 70 20 (28.6) 50 (71.4) 0 (0)

Pennsylvania 173 57 (32.9) 116 (67.1) 0 (0)

Rhode Island 12 4 (33.3) 8 (66.7) 0 (0)

South Carolina 102 79 (77.5) 23 (22.5) 0 (0)

South Dakota 12 5 (41.7) 7 (58.3) 0 (0)

Tennessee 103 63 (61.2) 40 (38.8) 0 (0)

Texas 1,250 516 (41.3) 734 (58.7) 0 (0)

Utah 20 5 (25.0) 15 (75.0) 0 (0)

Vermont 5 1 (20.0) 4 (80.0) 0 (0)

Virginia 205 39 (19.0) 166 (81.0) 0 (0)

Washington 205 44 (21.5) 158 (77.1) 3 (1.5)

West Virginia 14 9 (64.3) 5 (35.7) 0 (0)

Wisconsin 40 21 (52.5) 19 (47.5) 0 (0)

Wyoming 1 0 (0) 1 (100.0) 0 (0)

1

Includes persons born outside the United States (including the U.S. territories), except persons born to at least one U.S. citizen parent.

Note: See Surveillance Slide #16

64
# C_2014039EN.01001202.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 December 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Miguel M.

(Case C-627/13)

2014/C 39/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Miguel M.

Question referred

Question referred

Are medicinal products, as defined in Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, (1) which contain scheduled substances listed in Regulations (EC) No 273/2004 (2) and (EC) No 111/2005 (3) always excluded from the scope of those regulations in accordance with Article 2(a) of both those regulations, or is that to be presumed only where the medicinal products are compounded in such a way that the scheduled substances cannot be easily used or extracted by readily applicable or economically viable means?

1

2

3

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1).

2

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors (OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1).

3

---