alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009245EN.01001701.xml

| 13.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/17

---

COUNCIL DECISION

COUNCIL DECISION

of 9 October 2009

appointing Slovenian members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers

2009/C 245/06

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1), and in particular Article 82 thereof,

1

Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decision of 30 March 2009 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers for the period 30 March 2009 to 29 March 2011, with the exception of certain members including the Slovenian members and alternate members. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decision of 30 March 2009 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers for the period 30 March 2009 to 29 March 2011, with the exception of certain members including the Slovenian members and alternate members.

2

| (2) | The Slovenian Government has submitted nominations for a number of posts to be filled, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Slovenian Government has submitted nominations for a number of posts to be filled,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers for the period ending on 29 March 2011:

GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES

GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES

| Country | Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Slovenia | Ms Jana LOVŠIN
  Ms Zvezdana VEBER-HARTMAN | Ms Janja ROMIH |

Country

Members

Alternates

Slovenia

Ms Jana LOVŠIN

Ms Zvezdana VEBER-HARTMAN

Ms Janja ROMIH

TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES

TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES

| Country | Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Slovenia | Ms Metka ROKSANDIĆ
  Ms Maja KONJAR | Mr Ivan AŠENBERGER |

Country

Members

Alternates

Slovenia

Ms Metka ROKSANDIĆ

Ms Maja KONJAR

Mr Ivan AŠENBERGER

REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYER'S ORGANISATIONS

REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYER'S ORGANISATIONS

| Country | Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Slovenia | Ms Urška JEREB
  Mr Tomaž BERNIK | Ms Slavi PIRŠ |

Country

Members

Alternates

Slovenia

Ms Urška JEREB

Mr Tomaž BERNIK

Ms Slavi PIRŠ

Done at Luxembourg, 9 October 2009.

For the Council

The President

Å. TORSTENSSON

---

(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

1

(2)  OJ C 83, 7.4.2009, p. 19.

2

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Southeast Watershed Research: Tifton, GA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Scientific Partnerships
                        Long Term Agriculture Research Network (LTAR)
                                    GA Coastal Plain LTAR
                                    NRCS Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP)
                                    Southeast Biomass Research Center
                    About Us
                        History & Program
                                    Business Partnerships
                                    Models
                                    Public DataSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Tifton, Georgia Southeast Watershed Research People & Locations







Marshall Raymond Bennett III

(Ben)
                        Southeast Watershed Research

                        




                        
                        Physical Science Technician
                        Phone: (229) 386-3893
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### Reliance Insurance Company, Appellant, v Polyvision Corporation, Formerly Known as Information Display Technology, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Sovereign Commercial Group, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

Submitted January 29, 2007;

decided February 13, 2007

Certification of question by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.27), accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument.

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott. Taking no part: Judge Jones.
Basin Hydrology 

Colorado River Basin

Glen Canyon Dam

Adaptive Management Program

Technical Work Group Meeting

Phoenix, Arizona

November 8, 2002
Upper Colorado River Basin Precip

October 2001 - October 2002

0

255075

100125150175200

Oct01

Nov-01

Dec-01

Jan-02 Feb-02

Mar-02

Apr-02

May-02

Jun-02

Jul-02

Percent of Average
 Lake Powell Unregulated Inflo

Water year 2002

0

10,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000

Oct01

Nov-01

Dec-01

Jan-02

Feb-02

Mar-02

Apr-02

May-02

Jun02

Cubic Feet Per Second

2002 Observed

Average Unregulated
Projected 2003 Lake Pow

(November, 2002)

Scenario WY 2003 

17.3 maf

(144 %)

Maximum 

Probable

10.1 maf

(84 %)

Most

Probable

3.3 maf

(28 %)

Minimum

Probable
Glen Canyon Dam Monthly Releases 

Based on November, 2002 inflow projection

0

2000400060008000

10000120001400016000

Sep-02

Oct02

Nov-02

Dec-02

Jan-03 Feb-03

Mar-03

Apr-03

May-03

Jun-03

Jul-03

Cubic Feet per Second

With Exp/W

With Exp/W

Without Ex
Glen Canyon Dam Monthly Releases 

Based on November, 2002 inflow projection

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

Sep-02

Oct-02

Nov-02

Dec-02

Jan-03

Feb-03

Mar-03

Apr-03

May-03

Jun-03

Jul-03

Thousand Acre-Feet

With Exp/Without Se

With Exp/With Sed

Without Experiment
Lake Powell Projected Elevatio

Based on November 2002 Inflow Projectio

356035703580359036003610362036303640365036603670368036903700

Jan-02

Feb-02

Mar02

Apr02

May-02

Jun-02

Jul-02

Aug-02

Sep-02

Oct-02

Nov-02

Dec-02

Jan-03

Feb-03

Mar03

Apr03

May03

Feet

Most Probable

Max Probable

Min Probable
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,683
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,341
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (271)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,699
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,116
<PP&E>                                           9,681
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,014
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,950
<SALES>                                          5,106
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,106
<CGS>                                            2,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,125
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    53
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,735)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,735)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,735)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
# L_2015187EN.01009101.xml

| 15.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 187/91 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 187/91

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 188 of 18 July 2009
  )

On page 100, Article 9(2), second subparagraph:

for:

‘For the purpose of this paragraph, one producer shall be deemed to control another when the former is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the latter.’,

read:

‘For the purpose of this paragraph, one shall be deemed to control another when the former is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the latter.’.

---
#### Ellen M. Byrne *v.*Ura D. Trice

*Joel J. Rottner,*for the appellee (defendant).

*Mary McCarthy,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

Argued May 6

decided May 6, 1975

The defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40484

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: CLAMONT ENERGY CORPORATION, INC.,

Debtor

LEO ROGERS DUGAS,

Appellant,

versus

CLAMONT ENERGY CORPORATION, INC.;

CLARON CORPORATION, INC.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(1:96-CV-478)

October 28, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leo Roger Dugas, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal
1 See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

2

In re Moody, 41 F.3d 1024 (5th Cir. 1995).

2

of his appeal of the judgment of the bankruptcy court. The dates of action in this

cause are important. On April 16, 1996 the bankruptcy court orally announced that

the proceeding would be remanded to state court. On May 9, 1996 Dugas filed a

motion for reconsideration five days before the court signed a written order on

remand. The bankruptcy court denied this motion on June 11, 1996. Dugas noticed

an appeal to the district court 17 days later on June 28, 1996. The district court

dismissed the appeal as untimely. Dugas appealed to this court within 30 days of

the ruling by the district court.

Jurisdiction is always a threshold issue. Accordingly, we do not reach the

merits of Dugas’ motion for we must conclude that the district court correctly ruled

that it was compelled to dismiss the appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order for

failure of a timely appeal. Although the district court has jurisdiction to hear

appeals from the bankruptcy court,1to effectuate that appellate jurisdiction a party

must file a notice of appeal within 10 days after entry of the order subject to the

appeal.2 The effect of a motion, such as one under Federal Bankruptcy Rule 9023

to alter or amend the judgment, shall run from the entry of the order denying such
3

 Fed.Bankr.R. 8002(b)(2).

4

 This court has previously held that a motion to reconsider, brought before the time to

appeal has expired, is more properly treated as a Rule 9023 motion, which tolls the 10-day

period for appeals. In re Aguilar, 861 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1988).

3

motion.3 Therefore, Dugas’ failure to file a notice of appeal within 10 days after

the bankruptcy court’s ruling on the motion to reconsider compelled dismissal of

the appeal by the district court.4 That failure likewise compels our ruling.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
(10 App. Div. 02.)'

#### LUDWIG et al. v. LAZARUS et al.

(Supremo Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 13, 1896.)

1. Injunction—Restraining Dispossessory Proceedings.

Injunction will not lie against enforcement of judgment in dispossessory proceedings pending an appeal therefrom, since the statute regulating such proceedings prescribes a method for obtaining a stay pending appeal.

2. Summary Proceedings—Process—Service on Partners.

The precept in summary proceedings to dispossess a firm need not be served on each member of the firm, but a service on one of them is sufficient.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Bernhard J. Ludwig and others against Sarah Lazarus and others to restrain defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s possession of premises No. 36 West Fourteenth street in the city of New York. An injunction was granted, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RUMSEY, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

N. S. Spencer, for appellants.

W. Strauss, for respondents.

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

This action seems to have been instituted for the purpose of procuring a stay pending the appeal from a judgment entered in dispossess proceedings against the plaintiffs. There is no ground for the maintenance of such an action. The law has provided for the procedure in cases of this description, and courts of equity cannot be appealed to to secure stays of proceedings which the statute prohibits. It is sought to maintain this suit, however, upon the ground that the district court which entertained the dispossess proceedings had no jurisdiction, because it did not appear from the record that the plaintiff Isidor Ludwig was served with the precept in the manner prescribed by the Code. It appears from the papers that Bernhard J. Ludwig, the plaintiff, was the lessee of the premises in question, and that they were occupied by Ludwig Bros, as undertenants, said firm being composed of Bernhard and Isidor Ludivig. It further appears, from the papers as presented upon the part of the defendants, that Isidor Ludwig is a person of unsound mind, and absent from the city. There is no dispute but that Bernhard was duly served with the precept, and Ave are not aware of any rule in proceedings of this nature, where the premises are in the possession of a firm, Avhicli requires that each member of the firm shall be served with the precept in order to authorize the district court to entertain the proceeding and to issue its Avarrant for the dispossession of the firm. Bernhard J. Ludwig, a member of the firm, being duly served, the magistrate had jurisdiction to ente 11 *774proceeding and to issue the final warrant. The lessee and the undertenants were served. Hence the proceeding was regular.

We are therefore of the opinion that the injunction should not have been granted, and that the order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion for an injunction pendente lite denied, with $10 costs. All concur.
Exhibit
4.17


 


PROMISSORY
NOTE


 





FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, Grapefruit Boulevard Investments, Inc., a California corporation, (“Borrower”) promises to pay
to the order of Yourist Law Corporation, APC, a California corporation (“Lender”) or its assigns, the sum of One
Hundred Twenty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Seven Dollars and Ten Cents ($126,377.10) in principal, plus
interest at a rate of 10% annually on the unpaid balance as set forth herein.


 


	 	1.	PAYMENT
    TERMS: Borrower shall pay a lump sum on July 1, 2019.
	 	 	 
	 	2.	PREPAYMENT:
    Borrower may prepay the loan without any penalty.
	 	 	 
	 	3.	PAYMENT
    APPLICATION: All payments shall first be applied to interest and then to principal.
	 	 	 
	 	4.	ATTORNEYS’
    FEES AND COSTS: If the Lender prevails in any action to collect on this note, Borrower shall pay Lender’s reasonable
    costs and attorneys’ fees.
	 	 	 
	 	5.	STATE
    LAW: This note shall be governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
	 	 	 
	 	6.	MODIFICATIONS:
    Any modifications of or amendments to the terms herein shall be made in writing by all of the parties hereto.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the Lender and Borrower have executed this Note as of the 1st day of May, 2019.


 


	GRAPEFRUIT
    BOULEVARD INVESTMENTS, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Bradley J. Yourist	 
	Borrower Signature: Bradley J. Yourist, CEO	 
	 	 	 
	YOURIST
    LAW CORPORATION, APC	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Daniel
    J. Yourist	 
	Lender Signature: Daniel J. Yourist, CFO	 







 


CONFIDENTIAL
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT EUGENE G. WALTON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-154 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed September 4, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge. Eugene G. Walton, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Wicker v. State, 462 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1985); Tucker v. State, 459 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1984); State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1983); State v. Hicks, 421 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1982); Walton v. State, 244 So. 3d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (table decision).

CASANUEVA, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### Eric Biagi, Respondent, v Laura Biagi, Appellant.

*771Each party to this appeal seeks custody of the young child of the marriage during the pendency of this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, without a hearing, issued an order directing the parties to share custody of the child during the action’s pendency. As a general rule, it is error as a matter of law to make an order respecting custody based on controverted allegations without having had the benefit of a full hearing in order to resolve those factual issues which develop from conflicting affidavits *(see, Obey v Degling,*37 NY2d 768, 769-770; *Bellinger v Bellinger,*109 AD2d 1104). In this case, the order under review does not constitute a final determination of the custody issue, but is merely an order made pendente lite. In some cases, a party claiming to be aggrieved by such an order, even if it was made without a hearing, will be required to seek an expeditious trial *(see, Meltzer v Meltzer,*38 AD2d 522). Under the particular facts of this case, however, where the parties, in their affidavits, each accuse the other of being unfit to care for the now 20-month-old child, and where the matrimonial action has been commenced relatively recently, so that there is no realistic prospect for an expeditious trial, we find, as a matter of discretion, that a hearing should be held so as to allow the court to make a pendente lite custody determination based on a fuller record *(see, e.g., Richman v Rickman,*104 AD2d 934; *cf. Crum v Crum,*122 AD2d 771). The hearing should, of course, focus on the issue of what custody arrangement would be in the best interest of the child. The hearing court should note that the current pendente lite custody arrangement may not be appropriate in view of the apparent animosity which exists between the parties *(see, Braiman v Braiman,*44 NY2d 584; *Robinson v Robinson,*111 AD2d 316, 318). The hearing should take place forthwith. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### Crouse-Irving Memorial Hospital, Inc., Respondent, v Henry F. Chartier et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Motion granted and appeal unanimously dismissed, without costs. Same memorandum as in *Crouse-Irving Mem. Hosp. v Chartier*([appeal No. 1] 125 AD2d 971 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Lynch, J. — resettle.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Schnepp, JJ.