alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2004316EN.01006001.xml

| 15.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 316/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 316/60

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1773/2004

of 14 October 2004

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 9th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) and in particular the second indent of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 of 19 July 20043rd on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2004/2005 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 of 19 July 20043rd on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2004/2005 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 9th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 the maximum amount of the export refund shall be 45,376 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 October 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 14 October 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 246, 20.7.2004, p. 23. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1685/2004 (OJ L 303, 30.9.2004, p. 21).

2

---
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In Re:

RR3 RESOURCES, LLC and

RECYCLING REVOLUTION, LLC,

Debtors,

_____________________________________/

Case No. 19-25063-MAM

Case No. 19-25064-EPK

Chapter 11

Jointly Administered

ORDER ON DEBTORS’ MOTION TO COMPEL TURNOVER OF ESTATE ASSETS

THIS MATTER came before the Court for hearing on November 26, 2019, upon 

Debtors’ Motion to Compel Turnover of Estate Assets [D.E. 13] (“Motion”). Upon reviewing 

the matter, including the Response and Objection [D.E. 30] to the Motion filed by 

Gabrielle/MHT Limited Dividend Housing Partnership and Benjamin Manor MHT Dividend 

Housing Associates, LLC (collectively, “MHT”), having heard argument of counsel, and being 

advised in the premises, it is:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Motion [D.E. 13] is DENIED as to the funds formerly held by garnishee 

Bryan Plastics Processing, LLC and the Clerk of Court of Wood County, Ohio, and remitted via 

check to counsel for MHT dated November 4, 2019 in the amount of $9,462.91.

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on December 3, 2019.

Mindy A. Mora, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

Case 19-25063-MAM Doc 36 Filed 12/03/19 Page 1 of 2
2. The Motion [D.E. 13] is DENIED as moot with respect to the garnished funds 

with JR Plastics Corporation as a result of the Voluntary Dismissal of Writ of Garnishment [D.E. 

33] filed by MHT on November 25, 2019.

###

Submitted by:

Joe M. Grant, Esquire

Marshall Grant, PLLC

Attorneys for Debtors

197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200

Boca Raton, Florida 33432

Telephone No. 561.361.1000

Facsimile No. 561.672.7581

[*Attorney Joe M. Grant is hereby directed to serve a conformed copy of this Order upon receipt 

to all interested parties and file a Certificate of Service]

Case 19-25063-MAM Doc 36 Filed 12/03/19 Page 2 of 2
Ray Lamar JOHNSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC17-1678

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 5, 2018

James Vincent Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, James L. Driscoll Jr., David Dixon Hendry and Gregory W. Brown, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Timothy A. Freeland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

Ray Lamar Johnston appeals an order summarily denying his first successive postconviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.1

The underlying facts of this case were described in this Court's opinion on direct appeal. *Johnston v. State* , 841 So.2d 349, 351-55 (Fla. 2002). Johnston was convicted of the first-degree murder of Leanne Coryell, kidnapping, robbery, sexual battery, and burglary of a conveyance with assault. *Id.* at 351. Following a unanimous jury recommendation for death, the trial court sentenced Johnston to death. *Id.* at 355.

In this successive postconviction motion, we affirm the denial of Johnston's claim that he is entitled to relief pursuant to *Hurst v. Florida* , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and *Hurst v. State* , 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), *cert. denied* , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). Johnston received a unanimous jury recommendation of death and, therefore, the *Hurst* error in this case is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. *See**Davis v. State* , 207 So.3d 142, 175 (Fla. 2016). Additionally, we affirm the denial of Johnston's *Hurst* -induced *Caldwell*2 claim. *See**Reynolds v. State* , No. SC17-793, --- So.3d ----, ---- - ----, slip op. at 26-36, 2018 WL 1633075, at *10-12 (Fla. Apr. 5, 2018).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of postconviction relief.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., concur in result.

QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.

1

We have jurisdiction. *See* art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

2

*Caldwell v. Mississippi* , 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985).

QUINCE, J., dissenting.

*267I cannot agree with the majority's finding that the *Hurst* error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As I have stated previously, "[b]ecause *Hurst* requires 'a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death,' the error cannot be harmless where such a factual determination was not made." *Hall v. State* , 212 So.3d 1001, 1036-37 (Fla. 2017) (Quince, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citation omitted) (quoting *Hurst v. Florida* , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 619, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016) ); *see also**Truehill v. State* , 211 So.3d 930, 961 (Fla.) (Quince, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), *cert. denied* , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 3, 199 L.Ed.2d 272 (2017). The jury in this case did not make all the factual findings that *Hurst* requires a jury to make in order to impose all the aggravators at issue in this case. Therefore, I dissent.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3540 

To reduce Federal advertising budgets. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 

Mr. TESTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To reduce Federal advertising budgets. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reduction in Federal 

5 Advertising Budgets Act of 2012’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN FEDERAL ADVERTISING BUDGETS. 

7 Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 

8 of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and 

9 Budget shall issue a directive that requires that for fiscal 

10 year 2013, each agency shall expend for advertising not 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3540 IS

1 more than 50 percent of the amount expended by the 

2 agency for advertising during fiscal year 2012. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION  I, Daymon Bodard, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Nova Energy, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a_14) for the registrant and we have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and  c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and  6. I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  February 4, 2008  By /s/ Daymon Bodard Daymon Bodard, President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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 TiVo Inc. (the Company) Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ending January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Rogers, Chief Executive 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, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 2, 2009



/s/ THOMAS ROGERSThomas RogersChief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Corrections]
[Page 54409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-31023]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP96-6-000]


Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.; Notice of Request for Extension 
of Time

Correction

    In notice document 95-25379, beginning on page 53368, in the issue 
of Friday, October 13, 1995, make the following correction:
    On page 53368, in the third column, the docket number was omitted 
and should read as set forth above.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the
undersigned officer of Sysview Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and
belief, that:

         (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
         30, 2007 (the "Form 10-QSB") of the Company 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
         all materials respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.

                                             Date: November 14, 2007
                                             /S/ M. CAROLYN ELLIS
                                             --------------------
                                             M. Carolyn Ellis
                                             Chief Financial Officer

This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
Marion Cortez FELDER v. STATE

CR-15-1446

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 6140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-30201]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
AND FINANCIAL OFFICE R


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Lawrence Chimerine, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of First Transaction Management, Inc. on Form 10-Q, for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of New Generation Holdings, Inc.





Dated:
      August 13, 2010/s/
      Lawrence ChimerineLawrence Chimerine, Principal
      Accounting Officer
FORM OF AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



 Exhibit 10.2.7 
 FORM OF AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment to Employment
Agreement (the “Amendment”) is effective December 22, 2011 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Chesapeake Energy Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation (the “Company”), and [Executive Name], an individual (the
“Executive”). The Company and the Executive are referred to collectively in this Amendment as the “Parties.” 
 WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into an employment agreement (the “Employment Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Employment Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the promises and mutual agreements herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 

1.    All capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined shall have the same meaning in
this Amendment as in the Employment Agreement. 
 2.    The Employment Agreement is amended to delete
Subparagraph 4.4.2 in its entirety. 
 3.    Except as otherwise amended by this Amendment, the
remaining terms of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have
executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the Effective Date. 
  

									
	 Company:
	 		 	Chesapeake Energy Corporation
				
		 		 	By:  	 	 
		 		 		 		 	Aubrey K. McClendon
		 		 		 		 	Chief Executive Officer
				
	Executive:	 		 		 	 
		 		 		 		 	[Executive Name]
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Maps for America: cartographic products of the U.S. Geological Survey and others      

      July 16, 1987    

View Document

"Maps for America" was originally published in 1979 as a Centennial Volume commemorating the Geological Survey's hundred years of service (1879 - 1979) in the earth sciences. It was an eminently fitting Centennial Year publication, for, since its establishment, the Geological Survey has continuously carried on an extensive program of mapping to provide knowledge of the topography, geology, hydrology, and natural resources of our nation.

This volume contains an organized presentation of information about the map produced by the Geological Survey and other American organizations, public and private. Such maps are important tools for those in government and in private endeavors who are working to assure the wisest choices in managing the Nation's resources. They are particularly supportive of the Department of the Interior's role as the Nation's principal conservation agency.

The third edition of "Maps for America," like the second edition, is intended primarily to replenish the supply of copies of the book, but it also contains a number of changes to correct or update the text.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Explore Search

                  - United States

View All **
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-50103]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Bankruptcy Court

Southern District of Florida

In re Boca Shinju, Inc. Case No.

Debtor(s) Chapter 7

CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT (RULE 7007.1)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7007.1 and to enable the Judges to evaluate possible disqualification or

recusal, the undersigned counsel for Boca Shinju, Inc. in the above captioned action, certifies that the following is a (are)

corporation(s), other than the debtor or a governmental unit, that directly or indirectly own(s) 10% or more of any class of

the corporation's(s') equity interests, or states that there are no entities to report under FRBP 7007.1:

 None [Check if applicable]

December 18, 2019 /s/ Brian J. Cohen, Esq

Date Brian J. Cohen, Esq 142298

Signature of Attorney or Litigant

Counsel for Boca Shinju, Inc.

The Cohen Law Firm, PA

1700 University Drive, Ste. 210

Coral Springs, FL 33071

954-346-1400 Fax:954-346-0400

Software Copyright (c) 1996-2019 Best Case, LLC - www.bestcase.com Best Case Bankruptcy

Case 19-27165-MAM Doc 4 Filed 12/30/19 Page 1 of 1
John Yancey NUNEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0672

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of mandamus is denied.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Parameterization of the InVEST Crop Pollination Model to spatially predict abundance of wild blueberry (*Vaccinium angustifolium* Aiton) native bee pollinators in Maine, USA      

      May 1, 2016    

Non-native honeybees historically have been managed for crop pollination, however, recent population declines draw attention to pollination services provided by native bees. We applied the InVEST Crop Pollination model, developed to predict native bee abundance from habitat resources, in Maine's wild blueberry crop landscape. We evaluated model performance with parameters informed by four approaches: 1) expert opinion; 2) sensitivity analysis; 3) sensitivity analysis informed model optimization; and, 4) simulated annealing (uninformed) model optimization. Uninformed optimization improved model performance by 29% compared to expert opinion-informed model, while sensitivity-analysis informed optimization improved model performance by 54%. This suggests that expert opinion may not result in the best parameter values for the InVEST model. The proportion of deciduous/mixed forest within 2000 m of a blueberry field also reliably predicted native bee abundance in blueberry fields, however, the InVEST model provides an efficient tool to estimate bee abundance beyond the field perimeter.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Cyndy Loftin, PhD

##### Supervisory Biologist

Cooperative Research Units

cyndy_loftin@usgs.gov

207-581-2843

## Related Content

#### Cyndy Loftin, PhD

##### Supervisory Biologist

Cooperative Research Units

cyndy_loftin@usgs.gov

207-581-2843

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Cooperative Research Units Program          

12201 Sunrise Valley DrReston, VA20192United States

(703) 648 - 4260

(703) 648 - 4269

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - maine

View All **
Thomas BOHNE, Appellant, v. Kylene Bohne PETRIN, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2635

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.