alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010067EN.01000101.xml

| 18.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/1

---

COMMISSION OPINION

of 14 January 2010

relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Conditioning and Storage Facility for Activated Waste ICEDA, located on the Bugey site in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(Only the French text is authentic)

2010/C 67/01

On 13 July 2009, the European Commission received from the French Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Conditioning and Storage Facility for Activated Waste ICEDA, located on the Bugey site in France.

On the basis of these data and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

| 1. | The distance between the ICEDA facility and the nearest border with another Member State, in this case Italy, is 117 km. Germany is the next nearest Member State at a distance of 266 km. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The distance between the ICEDA facility and the nearest border with another Member State, in this case Italy, is 117 km. Germany is the next nearest Member State at a distance of 266 km.

| 2. | Under normal operating conditions, the discharges of gaseous effluents will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Under normal operating conditions, the discharges of gaseous effluents will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in another Member State.

| 3. | Solid radioactive waste will temporarily be stored on site before being transferred to a treatment or storage facility authorised by the French Government. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Solid radioactive waste will temporarily be stored on site before being transferred to a treatment or storage facility authorised by the French Government.

| 4. | In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluent which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in another Member State will not be liable to affect the health of the population. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluent which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in another Member State will not be liable to affect the health of the population.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form, arising from the Conditioning and Storage Facility for Activated Waste ICEDA, located on the Bugey site in France, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

Done at Brussels, 14 January 2010.

For the Commission

Andris PIEBALGS

Member of the Commission

---
#### PADOVANI v. SMITH et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Action by Raffaele Padovani against Tillie E. Smith and others. Lyman L. Settel, for appellant. John L. Shirley, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10- costs and disbursements.
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Gage Height                    
csv

      Flow                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Gage Height                    
json

      Flow                    
json
NO. 93-207

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1993

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and

v.

PATRICK JAMES CAMPBELL,

Defendant and

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,

In and for the County of Flathead,

The Honorable Michael H. Keedy, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Patrick James Campbell, Pro se,

Deer Lodge, Montana

For Respondent:

Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General,

George Schunk, Assistant Attorney General,

Helena, Montana: Thomas J. Esch, Flathead

County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana

Filed:

Submitted on Briefs: August 26, 1993

Decided: November 16, 1993
Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant Patrick James Campbell appeals from an order of the

Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, denying his

petition to vacate sentence.

We affirm.

Appellant raises one issue on appeal, which we rephrase as

follows:

Did the District Court err when it denied appellant's request

for an independent psychiatric evaluation?

On July 12, 1983, Campbell stole an automobile from a grocery

store parking lot in Kalispell. During the police chase, he

attempted to smash head-on into a police car. Subsequently, a jury

convicted him of felony theft and felony aggravated assault. On

February 15, 1984, the court sentenced him to prison terms of four

and seven years for theft and aggravated assault, and five years

for being a persistent felony offender, all to run consecutively.

In addition, the court designated him as a dangerous offender for

purposes of parole eligibility.

Campbell appealed his conviction and sentence to this Court in

State v. Campbell (1985), 219 Mont. 194, 711 P.2d 1357. In that

appeal, we held that § 46-14-202, MCA, does not provide for a

second psychiatric evaluation. Campbell, 711 P.2d at 1362.

Campbell now raises the same issue nine years after his initial

conviction in District Court. We will consider this action as an

appeal from a denial for post-conviction relief. Because we have

previously ruled on this issue in Campbell's initial appeal, we

2
hold that resjudicata precludes Campbell's appeal for post-conviction

relief. Hawkins v. State (1990), 242 Mont. 348, 351, 790 P.2d 990,

992.

We affirm the decision of the District Court.

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document

with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result

to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company.

We concur:

3
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Evaporation                    
csv

      Inflow                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Evaporation                    
json

      Inflow                    
json
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
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF) People & Locations







Ed  Havenstein
                        Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)

                        




                        
                        Custodial Worker
                        Phone:    
                        
                        
                        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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6538

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

OLADAYO OLADOKUN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-96-285, CA-99-1886-AW)

Submitted: August 29, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcia Gail Shein, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA G. SHEIN, P.C., Decatur,

Georgia, for Appellant. Jan Paul Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

February 14, 2000, the district court’s record shows that it was

entered on the docket sheet on February 16, 2000. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we take

the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet

as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson

v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Oladayo Oladokun seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Oladokun, Nos. CR-96-285;

CA-99-1886-AW (D. Md. Feb. 16, 2000).* We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998, AS SET FORTH IN ITS FORM 10-Q FOR SUCH PERIOD
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          4,314
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 161,414
<ALLOWANCES>                                    4,136
<INVENTORY>                                   140,556
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              329,837
<PP&E>                                        382,362
<DEPRECIATION>                                194,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                664,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         144,098
<BONDS>                                       140,426
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          389
<OTHER-SE>                                    328,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  664,899
<SALES>                                       199,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              199,734
<CGS>                                         139,229
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 139,229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              3,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                22,287
<INCOME-TAX>                                    8,580
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            13,707
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   13,707
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.18<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.18<F1>
<FN>
<F1> RESTATEMENT REFLECTED HEREIN IS THE RESULT OF THE PRORATION AND STOCK
ELECTION PROCEDURES RELATED TO THE AUGUST 19, 1999 MERGER AS DESCRIBED IN
NOTE 2 OF NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN
BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2 Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Entheos Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on the Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harmel S. Rayat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.  ENTHEOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date:  March 30, 2007By:/s/ Harmel S. RayatHarmel S. Rayat
Chief Financial Officer   This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 4.8



Coles Myer Ltd.



R H Allert AM

Chairman



11 February 2005



John Fletcher

Chief Executive Officer



Dear John



Agreement to extend term of appointment



I refer to my letter to you dated 3 September 2001 setting out your terms and conditions of employment (the original agreement).



The current term of your contract expires on 9 September 2006 (subject to the provisions
of paragraph 11 of the original agreement).



I am delighted to inform you that
the Board has authorised me to offer to extend the term of your employment after 9 September 2006.



As discussed, the proposal is that your employment after 9 September 2006 will continue until terminated by either you giving 12 months written notice to CML or by CML giving to you 12 months written
notice or by making a payment to you in lieu of 12 months notice in accordance with the schedule attached to the original agreement.



The offer is made on the basis that:



|(a) | you agree not to give a notice that would have the effect of your employment terminating prior to 9 September 2007;
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | except to the extent to which they are varied by this letter, all other terms and conditions remain as set out in the original agreement, including CMLs right to terminate
your employment at any time prior to 9thSeptember 2006 in accordance with Clause 11. I note here that the base
salary set out in the original agreement has been varied since the original agreement.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Would you please confirm your acceptance of this offer by signing and returning the attached copy letter.



Sincerely,



|        
|--------
|        
|        
|Chairman



Coles Myer Ltd.
A.B.N. 11 004 089 936

800 Toorak Road, Tooronga, Victoria 3146, Australia. PO Box 2000, Glen Iris, Victoria, Australia

Telephone: 61 3 9829 3111 Facsimile: 61 3 9829 6787
# C_2022117EN.01035101.xml

| 11.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/351 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/351

---

P9_TA(2021)0381

EU-Korea agreement: certain aspects of air services ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 September 2021 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea on certain aspects of air services (05210/2021 — C9-0120/2021 — 2019/0044(NLE))

(Consent)

(2022/C 117/33)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (05210/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (05210/2021),

| — | having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea on certain aspects of air services (15082/2019), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea on certain aspects of air services (15082/2019),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218(7), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0120/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218(7), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0120/2021),

| — | having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0251/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0251/2021),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Korea. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
# C_2010287EN.01000101.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/1

---

COUNCIL STATEMENT

Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission

2010/C 287/01

The Council has taken note of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission signed by the two Institutions on 20 October 2010.

The Council, which was not party to the negotiating of the Framework Agreement, points out that compliance with the founding Treaties of the Union, in the terms in which they have been ratified by the Member States, is the fundamental principle governing the existence and the functioning of the Union. The Treaties define exhaustively the respective powers conferred on the Institutions (Article 13(2) TEU). Those powers may not be modified or supplemented by the Institutions themselves either unilaterally or by agreement between them.

The Council notes that several provisions of the Framework Agreement have the effect of modifying the institutional balance set out in the Treaties in force, according the European Parliament prerogatives that are not provided for in the Treaties and limiting the autonomy of the Commission and its President. The Council is particularly concerned by the provisions on international agreements, infringement proceedings against Member States and transmission of classified information to the European Parliament.

The Framework Agreement cannot be applied to the Council. The Council will submit to the Court of Justice any act or action of the European Parliament or of the Commission performed in application of the provisions of the Framework Agreement that would have an effect contrary to the interests of the Council and the prerogatives conferred upon it by the Treaties.

---
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. NO. 33,792

5 PATRICIO ORTEGON,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY

8 Stephen K. Quinn, District Judge 

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender

13 Santa Fe, NM 

14 Kirk C. Chavez, Assistant Appellate Defender

15 Hobbs, NM 

16 for Appellant

17 MEMORANDUM OPINION

18 VANZI, Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has

3 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

4 {2} DISMISSED.

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 __________________________________

7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 _________________________________

10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

11 _________________________________

12 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge