alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alexander WRIGHT, Defendant—Appellant.

Nos. 03-80051, 03-30052.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 16, 2004.

Gregory R. Nyhus, SAUSA, USPO— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jane Elizabeth Ellis, Esq., Law Office of Jane Ellis, Attorney At Law, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Alexander Wright appeals the district court’s orders revoking supervised release and imposing sentences. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm these consolidated appeals.

Wright contends that the district court erred by sentencing him to consecutive sentences of imprisonment following the revocation of his supervised release because the original plea agreement and sentence provided that the terms of imprisonment be concurrent and co-terminous. The district court did not err because under Ninth Circuit precedent, a district court may impose consecutive sentences after the revocation of supervised release even when the original sentences were concurrent. *See United States v. Jackson,*176 F.3d 1175, 1176 (9th Cir.1999).

Wright also contends that the district court erred by imposing a term of supervised release following his re-imprisonment. This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Johnson,*529 U.S. 694, *452713, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000) (holding that district courts have the authority to order terms of supervised release following reimprisonment).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Armando ORTEGA-GARCIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6629.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Marco A. HENDRICKSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9593.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JESSE McNEELEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:14 CV 1704 

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Jesse McNeeley, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended habeas corpus petition

challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 14-01-724) that was held on February

10, 2014, where he was found guilty of possessing a controlled substance in violation of

B-202 and deprived of 90 days earned credit time and demoted to Credit Class 2. The

respondent argues that the petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted. “[T]o exhaust

a claim, and thus preserve it for collateral review under § 2254, a prisoner must present

that legal theory to the . . . Final Reviewing Authority . . . .” Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d

978, 982 (7th Cir. 2002). Question 6 on the form for filing a habeas corpus petition

challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding asked McNeeley if he appealed to the

Final Reviewing Authority – he placed an “X” in the box indicating “No.”

In his traverse, McNeeley argues that “WCC is clearly hindering the appeal

process[;] this can be demonstrated by the 60 days that elapsed between the filing of an

appeal and the response. Because the time frame was so long (beyond IDC policy) they

hindered the appeal process which is a violation of Due Process.” (DE # 14 at 5.) The
record supports McNeeley’s assertion that it took the Superindent nearly two months to

respond to his appeal. (DE # 10-4.) McNeeley filed his appeal on February 11, 2014, and

the response is dated April 2, 2014. Id. However, part of the response to his appeal

states, “Since you suffered a grievous loss, you may appeal this decision to the final

reviewing authority.” (Id. at 2.) The appeal form states, “If the response if unfavorable

and involves grievous loss sanctions, the offender may then forward the appeal, within

fifteen (15) working days of the date the response is received from the facility head, to

the appropriate Final Reviewing Authority.” (Id. at 1.) Nothing here indicates that

McNeeley was prevented from appealing to the Final Reviewing Authority.

Nevertheless, there is no indication that he made any effort to do so. Therefore his

claims are procedurally defaulted. 

For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED and the clerk is DIRECTED to enter

judgment against Jesse McNeeley. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: August 12, 2015

 s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1555

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the cover 

over of the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits 

to Guam and the Virgin Islands. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2005

Ms. BORDALLO (for herself and Mrs. CHRISTENSEN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for the cover over of the refundable portion of the earned 

income and child tax credits to Guam and the Virgin 

Islands.

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 ‘‘Insular Areas Tax 

5 Credit Act’’. 
2

•HR 1555 IH 

1 SEC. 2. COVER OVER OF REFUNDABLE PORTION OF 

2 EARNED INCOME AND CHILD TAX CREDITS 

3 TO GUAM AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7654 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 (relating to coordination of United 

6 States and certain possession individual income taxes) is 

7 amended by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f) 

8 and by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 

9 subsection: 

10 ‘‘(e) REFUNDABLE PORTION OF EARNED INCOME

11 AND CHILD TAX CREDITS.—

12 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the amounts 

13 determined under the preceding provisions of this 

14 section, with respect to calendar year 2006 and each 

15 calendar year thereafter, the United States shall pay 

16 an estimate of the applicable refundable tax credit 

17 amount to Guam and the Virgin Islands during the 

first 31 18 ⁄2 months of such calendar year. 

19 ‘‘(2) ADJUSTMENTS; SUPPLEMENTAL PAY20 MENTS.—Proper adjustments shall be made in 

21 amounts transferred under this subsection to the ex22 tent that prior estimates of the applicable refundable 

23 tax credit amount are in excess of or less than such 

24 amount. In the case of an estimate which is less 

25 than the applicable refundable tax credit amount, 

26 the Secretary may make supplemental payments 
3

•HR 1555 IH 

1 which, in the aggregate, do not exceed the difference 

2 between such estimate and the applicable refundable 

3 tax credit amount. Any adjustment under this para4 graph shall take into account any such supplemental 

5 payment. 

6 ‘‘(3) APPLICABLE REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT

7 AMOUNT.—For purposes of this subsection, the term 

8 ‘applicable refundable tax credit amount’ means, 

9 with respect to Guam or the Virgin Islands for any 

10 calendar year, the excess of—

11 ‘‘(A) the aggregate refunds paid by Guam 

12 or the Virgin Islands, as the case may be, to in13 dividuals with respect to taxable years ending in 

14 or with the preceding calendar year, over 

15 ‘‘(B) the aggregate refunds which (as de16 termined by the Secretary) would have been so 

17 paid if section 24(d) did not apply and the 

18 credit allowed under section 32 was not refund19 able.’’. 

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

22 of this Act.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12176]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service


Tax on Certain Imported Substances (Acrylic Fiber (93% 
Acrylonitrile, 7% Vinyl Acetate)); Rejection of Petition

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the rejection, under Notice 89-61, of a 
petition requesting that acrylic fiber (93% acrylonitrile, 7% vinyl 
acetate) be added to the list of taxable substances in section 
4672(a)(3).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Hoffman, Office of Assistant 
Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries), (202) 622-3130 
(not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 14, 1992, a Notice of Receipt of 
Petitions was published in the Federal Register (57 FR 12956) 
announcing the receipt of a petition submitted by Monsanto Company 
requesting that acrylic fiber (93% acrylonitrile, 7% vinyl acetate) be 
added to the list of taxable substances in section 4672(a)(3). Notice 
89-61, 1989-1 CB 717, provides that the term substance excludes textile 
fibers and therefore acrylic fiber is not a substance for which a 
petition may be accepted. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Dale D. Goode,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 95-12176 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26458-26459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12079]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Water 
Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed amendment to the consent decree in United 
States v. Ketchikan Pulp Company, Civil Action No. A92-587, was lodged 
on March 21, 1995 with the United States District Court for the 
District of Alaska. The complaint in this case alleged claims arising 
out of the discharge of pollutants from Ketchikan Pulp Company's pulp 
mill into Ward Cove, near Ketchikan, Alaska. The decree provides for 
payment of a civil penalty, as well as injunctive relief, including 
remediation of Ward Cove sediments and an environmental audit of the 
mill. The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty 
(30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed amendment. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to 
United States v. Ketchikan Pulp Company, DOJ Ref. 90-5-1-1-3930.
    The proposed amendment may be examined at the office of the United 
States Attorney, 222 W. 7th Ave., Anchorage, Alaska, the Region 10 
Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, Washington and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, 
N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the 
proposed consent decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library, [[Page 26459]] 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, 
Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting a copy of the consent decree, 
please enclose a check in the amount of $10.50 (25 cents per page 
reproduction costs) payable to the ``Consent Decree Library''. When 
requesting a copy please refer to United States v. Ketchikan Pulp 
Company, DOJ Ref. 90-5-1-1-3930.
Joel Gross,
Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 95-12079 Filed 5-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

QUITO I. NEHEMIAH,

Petitioner

v.

DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________

2024-1575

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DE-0731-23-0243-I-1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

In response to this court’s July 2, 2024 order directing 

the parties to address this court’s jurisdiction, Quito I. Nehemiah moves to transfer the case to district court and the 

Director of the Office of Personnel Management agrees that 

transfer is appropriate.

Case: 24-1575 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 09/17/2024
2 NEHEMIAH v. OPM

Mr. Nehemiah appealed his negative suitability decision from the Office of Personnel Management to the Merit 

Systems Protection Board, asserting, among other things, 

discrimination based on race and gender. In his filings 

with this court, Mr. Nehemiah continues to seek review of 

his discrimination claims.

Federal district courts, not this court, have jurisdiction 

over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of 

[5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” § 7703(b)(2), which involve an allegation 

of an action appealable to the Board and an allegation that 

a basis for the action was covered discrimination, § 7702(a). 

Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017). 

Here, Mr. Nehemiah brought a mixed case before the 

Board and he seeks judicial review of his discrimination 

claims such that his case belongs in district court. We 

agree with the Director that transfer to the United States 

District Court for the District of New Mexico, where it appears Mr. Nehemiah would have worked but for the alleged 

unlawful employment practice, is appropriate under 28 

U.S.C. § 1631. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion to transfer is granted to the extent that this

matter and all case filings are transferred to the United 

States District Court for the District of New Mexico pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

September 17, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 24-1575 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 09/17/2024
Amend to Employ Agree between Innkeepers Trust and Jeff Fisher - Nov 2000



 Exhibit 10.6(c) 
  
 AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of November 13, 2000, between INNKEEPERS USA TRUST, a Maryland real estate investment trust (“Company”), and JEFFREY H. FISHER (“Executive”), recites and provides
as follows: 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered
into an Employment Agreement effective February 1, 1997 (“Employment Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to amend the Employment Agreement to provide for an increased Base Salary and extend the term. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual
obligations set forth herein and in the Employment Agreement, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 
  
 1. The first sentence of Section 3 of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 
  
 “The term of the Executive’s employment hereunder (the
“Term”) shall expire on January 2, 2004, unless terminated earlier as provided herein.” 
  
 2. Section 4 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 
  
 “The Executive shall devote substantially all of his time, attention
and effort to the Company’s affairs; provided that the Company acknowledges that the Executive may, from time to time, hold the position of President of Innkeepers Hospitality, Inc. and/or one or more of its sister companies whose primary
business is leasing and/or managing properties in which the Company holds an interest, and that the Executive may devote business time to these companies so long as such activities do not interfere with the performance of Executive’s duties
hereunder. The Executive shall have full authority and responsibility, subject to the general direction, approval and control of the Company’s Board of Trustees, for formulating policies and administering the Company in all respects.”

  
 3. Section 5(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended
to provide for a annual Base Salary in 2001 of $313,300, subject to increase in each subsequent year of the Term as set forth in Section 5(a). 
  
 4. The terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall not be deemed to have been changed except as expressly modified hereby, and as so modified
the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 5. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the 13th day of November, 2000. 
  

			
	THE COMPANY:
	
	 INNKEEPERS USA TRUST, a Maryland real estate
 investment trust

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ David Bulger


	 Its:
	 	 Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

	
	EXECUTIVE:
	
	 /s/ Jeffrey H. Fisher


	 JEFFREY H. FISHER
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 25, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11914

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 05-00720-CV-CG-M

BILL SALTER ADVERTISING, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF ATMORE, 

a municipal corporation of the State of Alabama,

ALLEN NIX, 

as Building Inspector of the City of Atmore,

TROY KING, 

as Attorney General of the State of Alabama,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________

 (September 25, 2008) 

Before MARCUS, WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

The Plaintiff, Bill Salter Advertising, Inc. ("BSA") appeals, challenging the

district court's denial of BSA's motion for summary judgment and the grant of

summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

At issue on this appeal are BSA's challenges to § 9.521 and Note 7 of an

ordinance promulgated by the City of Atmore in 1998.

We have carefully considered BSA's arguments and relevant parts of the

record. We conclude that the district court properly determined that BSA's

constitutional attacks on § 9.521 and Note 7 were without merit. Summary

judgment in favor of the Defendants was proper.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12245]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy


Privacy Act of 1974; Amend Record Systems

AGENCY: Marine Corps, Department of the Navy.

ACTION: Amend record system.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Marine Corps proposes to amend a system of records in 
its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 
U.S.C. 552a), as amended. This notice amends the system of records 
notice MFD00009, entitled Marine Corps Command Legal Files, last 
published in the Federal Register on February 8, 1995, at 60 FR 7523. 
The amendment consists of changing the system identifier from MFD00009 
to MJA00009.

DATES: The amendment will be effective May 18, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Head, FOIA and Privacy Act Section, 
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20380-
1775.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. L. Thompson at (703) 614-4008 
or DSN 224-4008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Marine Corps record system notices 
for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), 
as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are 
available from the address above.
    This notice amends the system of records notice MFD00009, entitled 
Marine Corps Command Legal Files, last published in the Federal 
Register on February 8, 1995, at 60 FR 7523. The amendment consists of 
changing the system identifier from MFD00009 to MJA00009.

    Dated: May 8, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-12245 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-F
Kevin SCOTT, et al., petitioners, v. Sheila HENSLEY, et vir.

No. 12-717.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# Europos Sąjungos C 8/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0960 |
| --- | --- |
| Europos Sąjungos
  oficialusis leidinys | C 8 |
| | |
| Leidimas lietuvių kalba | Informacija ir pranešimai | 62 metai2019m. sausio 9d. |

ISSN 1977-0960

Europos Sąjungos

oficialusis leidinys

C 8

Leidimas lietuvių kalba

Informacija ir pranešimai

62 metai2019m. sausio 9d.

---

| Turinys | Puslapis |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Nuomonės |
| | ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS |
| | Europos Parlamentas |
| 2019/C 8/01 | Sprendimas | 1 |

Turinys

Puslapis

V   Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Europos Parlamentas

2019/C 8/01

Sprendimas

1

---

| LT | |
| --- | --- |

LT

---

V Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Europos Parlamentas

| 9.1.2019 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 8/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2019

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 8/1

---

SPRENDIMAS

(2019/C 8/01)

EUROPOS PARLAMENTO GENERALINIS SEKRETORIUS,

| — | ATSIŽVELGDAMAS į Tarybos reglamentą (EEB, Euratomas, EAPB) Nr. 259/68 (1), iš dalies pakeistą 2013 m. spalio 22 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentu (ES, Euratomas) Nr. 1023/2013, kuriuo iš dalies keičiami Europos Sąjungos pareigūnų tarnybos nuostatai ir kitų Europos Sąjungos tarnautojų įdarbinimo sąlygos (2), ypač į Tarnybos nuostatų 30 straipsnį, |
| --- | --- |

—

ATSIŽVELGDAMAS į Tarybos reglamentą (EEB, Euratomas, EAPB) Nr. 259/68 (1), iš dalies pakeistą 2013 m. spalio 22 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentu (ES, Euratomas) Nr. 1023/2013, kuriuo iš dalies keičiami Europos Sąjungos pareigūnų tarnybos nuostatai ir kitų Europos Sąjungos tarnautojų įdarbinimo sąlygos (2), ypač į Tarnybos nuostatų 30 straipsnį,

| — | ATSIŽVELGDAMAS į 2014 m. sausio 13 d. Europos Parlamento biuro sprendimą dėl skiriančiojo subjekto ir darbo sutartis sudaryti įgalioto subjekto įgaliojimų suteikimo, |
| --- | --- |

—

ATSIŽVELGDAMAS į 2014 m. sausio 13 d. Europos Parlamento biuro sprendimą dėl skiriančiojo subjekto ir darbo sutartis sudaryti įgalioto subjekto įgaliojimų suteikimo,

| — | ATSIŽVELGDAMAS į tai, kad 2018 m. gruodžio 31 d. baigia galioti šie Europos Parlamento rezervo sąrašai:
  AD/1/13, AST/4/11, AST/1/13, PE/168/S, PE/171/S, PE/185/S, PE/186/S; |
| --- | --- |

—

ATSIŽVELGDAMAS į tai, kad 2018 m. gruodžio 31 d. baigia galioti šie Europos Parlamento rezervo sąrašai:

AD/1/13, AST/4/11, AST/1/13, PE/168/S, PE/171/S, PE/185/S, PE/186/S;

| — | ATSIŽVELGDAMAS į Jungtinio komiteto nuomonę, pateiktą per 2018 m. spalio 24 d. posėdį, |
| --- | --- |

—

ATSIŽVELGDAMAS į Jungtinio komiteto nuomonę, pateiktą per 2018 m. spalio 24 d. posėdį,

NUSPRENDĖ:

Vienintelis straipsnis

Rezervo sąrašų

AD/1/13, AST/4/11, AST/1/13, PE/168/S, PE/171/S, PE/185/S, PE/186/S

galiojimo laikas pratęsiamas iki 2019 m. gruodžio 31 d.

Liuksemburgas, 2018 m. lapkričio 30 d.

Klaus WELLE

Generalinis sekretorius

---

(1)  OL L 56, 1968 3 4, p. 1.

1

(2)  OL L 287, 2013 10 29, p. 15.

2

---