alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010055EN.01000801.xml

| 5.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/8

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 55/05

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Routes concerned | Strasbourg–Milan
  Strasbourg–Rome
  Strasbourg–Warsaw
  Strasbourg–Vienna |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | Repeal |
| Address from which the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained | Decree of 8 February 2010 repealing the public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services between Strasbourg and Milan, Rome, Warsaw and Vienna
  NOR: DEVA1002764A
  http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
  For further details:





  Direction générale de l'aviation civile |
| DTA/SDT/T2 |
| 50 rue Henry Farman |
| 75720 Paris cedex 15 |
| FRANCE |
| Tel. +33 158094321 |
| E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr |

Member State

France

Routes concerned

Strasbourg–Milan

Strasbourg–Rome

Strasbourg–Warsaw

Strasbourg–Vienna

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

Repeal

Address from which the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained

Decree of 8 February 2010 repealing the public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services between Strasbourg and Milan, Rome, Warsaw and Vienna

NOR: DEVA1002764A

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do

For further details:

Direction générale de l'aviation civile

DTA/SDT/T2

50 rue Henry Farman

75720 Paris cedex 15

FRANCE

Tel. +33 158094321

E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr

---
Exhibit
No. 32.1
 Form
10-Q
 First
Quantum Ventures, Inc.
 File
No. 33000-52759
  Certification
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 Quarterly Report of First Quantum Ventures, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew
Godfrey, Chief Executive and Chief Financial 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:
  (1) the
Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:
May 14,
2009
  /s/
Andrew
Godfrey
 Andrew
Godfrey
 Chief
Executive Officer,
 Chief
Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Hawkins, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marvin E. Dee, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) |  | The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/   Marvin E. DeeMarvin E. DeeChief Financial OfficerAugust 9, 2007




---
**Exhibit 3.15**

 

February 25, 2005 

 

David McGlade 

Penthouse 

Athena Court 

2 Finchley Road 

London, NW8 6DP 

 

Re:    Intelsat Ltd. Employment Agreement

 

Dear Mr. McGlade: 

 

You and ZeusHoldings Limited (“Zeus”) and Intelsat Ltd. (“Intelsat”) have entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of January 28, 2005. 

 

Pursuant to Section 2.1(c)(i) of the Employment Agreement, Intelsat is required to pay you a lump sum payment of $1,500,000 as soon as practicablefollowing your commencement of employment with the Company. In lieu of such obligations under Section 2.1(c)(i) of the Employment Agreement, the Company shall pay you an amount in cash equal to $300,000 on the date hereof, and an amount in cashequal to $1,200,000 on March 15, 2005 (each a “Payment Amount” and collectively, the “Payment Amounts”), and shall have no further obligation under Section 2.1(c)(i) of the Employment Agreement. In addition to such amounts,Intelsat will pay to you on the date hereof an amount in cash equal to $90,880, as a return of certain amounts overwithheld from you by Intelsat in connection with previous compensatory payments. 

 

All shares of Parent purchased by you prior to the commencement of youremployment shall be treated as Purchased Parent Shares under your Employment Agreement. If you do not commence employment with Intelsat by April 1, 2005, you shall repay immediately to Intelsat the Payment Amounts, and your repayment obligationsunder the second sentence of Section 2.1(c)(i) shall continue to remain in effect. 

 

The governing law of this letter and dispute resolution shall be as set forth in Section 7 of the Employment Agreement, and the withholding provisions of Section 7.12 of the Employment Agreement shall apply to thesepayments. 

 

Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have themeaning set forth in the Employment Agreement or the Transaction Agreement, as applicable. 

 

David McGlade 

February 25,2005 

Page 2 

 
INTELSAT LTD.By:  
 
Accepted and Acknowledged:
DAVIDMCGLADE

 

David McGlade
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29131-29132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13417]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6985-6]

Notice of Availability for the State, Local, and Tribal Technical 
Assistance Document for Implementing the Revised Subpart E (Section 
112(l)) Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is making available for the public a technical 
assistance document to aid State, Local, and Tribal air pollution 
control agencies (S/L/Ts) in implementing the revised 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E provisions. Subpart E, which was originally promulgated in 
November 1993 and recently revised in September 2000, codifies section 
112(l) of the Clean Air Act. Section 112(l) mandates EPA to provide 
guidance to S/L/Ts for delegating to them the authority to implement 
and enforce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) standards and requirements of 
section 112. Congress recognized that some S/L/Ts had developed their 
own HAP standards and requirements, and therefore, in addition, 
mandated that EPA develop provisions to allow S/L/Ts to substitute 
their rules, requirements, and programs, when demonstrated to be as 
stringent, in lieu of corresponding Federal section 112 requirements.
    Prior to the revisions in September 2000 when S/L/Ts began using 
Subpart E to substitute their rules, requirements, and programs for 
section 112 HAP requirements and standards, they found the provisions 
to be inflexible and too burdensome. After meeting with S/L/Ts, EPA 
agreed to revisit the rule to make it more flexible. After many 
discussions and public meetings with stakeholders to understand their 
concerns and issues, providing a draft for their review, and conducting 
pilot projects with stakeholders in California, EPA proposed the 
revisions in January 1999. After reviewing the public comments 
received, EPA resolved to address all stakeholder concerns and provide 
even more flexibility and authorities to S/L/Ts in the final 
rulemaking. Because there was extensive revisions from the existing as 
compared to the final rule, EPA is publishing technical assistance

[[Page 29132]]

to aid S/L/Ts in the implementation of the final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Driscoll, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA Region 8, 999 18th Street, Denver, CO 
80202-2466, telephone (303) 312-6785 or E-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of the technical assistance document 
may be obtained by calling or E-mailing Pamela J. Smith at 919-541-0641 
or [email protected]. The technical assistance document may also be 
downloaded from the Unified Air Toxics Web Site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112(l)/112-lpg.html.

    Dated: May 10, 2001.
John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-13417 Filed 5-25-01-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 27, 2017

No. 04

- 15

- 00754

- C V

Melecio Arturo MOLINA,

Appellant

v.

Melecio Arturo MOLINA, Jr. and Patricia Molina,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CVQ001900 C1

Honorable Hugo Martinez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellees ’ motion for rehearing, and the motion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of July, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

# **SUBDIARIES OF THE COMPANY**

 

ACTIVE DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES

 

Westaff (USA), Inc.

Mediaworld International

Westaff Support, Inc.

 

INACTIVE DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES

 

Western Medical Services, Inc.

 

ACTIVE FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES

 

Australia:

Westaff (Australia) Pty Ltd

 

New Zealand:

Westaff NZ Limited

 

Singapore:

Westaff (Singapore) Pte Ltd

 

United Kingdom:

Westaff (U.K.) Limited

Western Staff Services (UK)Limited

 

INACTIVE FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES:

 

Australia:

Western Personnel Services Pty.Ltd.

Western Temporary Services PtyLimited

 

Mexico:

Westaff de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

 

----
#### David WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jasmine MARCHANT; Kevin Murphy; T.J. Haycox; Katherine Peebles; Lucy Lee; Sarah Merkle; Jeff Brown; Luke McCloud; Jonathan David Shaub; Justin Murray; Grayson Lambert; Will Brumbach; John Kammerrer; Tony Emmanuel, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-6383.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 29, 2013.

David Willis, Appellant pro se. Paul Bradford Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Willis appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his *270complaint under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Willis v. Marchant,*No. 3:12-cv-00843-RGD (W.D.N.C. Feb. 26, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-1199.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 21, 2010.

Decided Oct. 25, 2010.

Ronald L. Dewald, Jr., Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard H. Parsons, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Alejandro Martinez, a member of the Spanish Cobras street gang, pleaded guilty to distributing a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment, almost 7 years below the applicable guidelines range. Martinez filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer has not identified an arguable basis to challenge Martinez’s conviction or sentence and seeks permission to withdraw. *See Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We invited Martinez to respond to counsel’s motion, *see*Cir. R. 51(b), but he has not. We limit our review to the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief. *See United States v. Schuh,*289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.2002).

Martinez stands by his guilty plea. Counsel, therefore, does not discuss the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the volun-tariness of the plea. *See United States v. Knox,*287 F.3d 667, 670-72 (7th Cir.2002).

Counsel has evaluated whether Martinez could challenge the calculation of his guidelines imprisonment range. The district court found that Martinez is a career offender because of prior convictions for possessing crack with intent to distribute and for delivering cocaine, *see*U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(b)(A), which resulted in a base offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of VI. The court applied a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, *see*U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, and deter*117mined that the imprisonment range was 262 to 327 months. In his plea agreement, Martinez stipulated to this range and to the underlying calculations, so we agree with counsel that an appellate challenge would be frivolous. *See United States v. Cole,*569 F.3d 774, 775 (7th Cir.2009).

Counsel also considers whether Martinez could argue that his 180-month prison sentence is unreasonably high. But the term is almost 7 years less than the low end of the guidelines range and is presumptively reasonable. *See United States v. Liddell,*543 F.3d 877, 885 (7th Cir.2008); *United States v. George,*403 F.3d 470, 473 (7th Cir.2005). Counsel has not suggested a reason why the presumption would not stand, and we can think of none.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is Granted and the appeal is Dismissed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1375-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-1375-DR), dated May 17, 2001, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

May 29, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of South Dakota is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 17, 2001:

Brown, Day, Hanson, Marshall, Moody and Turner Counties for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)

Lacy E. Suiter, 

Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 01-14038 Filed 6-4-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 440 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1509

Aluminum Option - LME Aluminum CMA Option - LME

DESCRIPTION

Monthly cash settled put and call options based upon the price published by LME for the location specified in 

Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the LME Official Cash Settlement 

Price for Primary Aluminum for each business day that it is determined during the contract month.

OPTION CHARACTERISTICS

TRADING UNIT

On expiration of a Call Option, the value will be the difference between the arithmetic average of the LME 

Official Cash Settlement Price for Primary Aluminum (as described in Floating Price A) and the strike price, 

or zero whichever is greater. On expiration of a Put Option, the value will be the difference between the 

strike price and the arithmetic average of the LME Official Cash Settlement Price for Primary Aluminum

(as described in Floating Price A), or zero whichever is greater.

TYPE OPTION

Cash-settled Average Price option which cannot be exercised prior to expiration.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract quantity shall be metric tons. Each contract based shall be valued as the contract quantity in metric 

tons multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICING AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars per metric ton. The minimum price fluctuation shall be $0.01 per 

metric ton. The minimum price increment will be $0.001. There shall be no maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last calendar day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination of posting 

for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price will be the Floating 

Price calculated for each contract month.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b)(2) “Public notice of receipt of an application,” please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the following application for an export license. Copies of the application are available electronically through ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link 
                    *<http://www.nrc.gov/​NRC/​ADAMS/​index.html>*
                     at the NRC Homepage. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. In its review of the application for a license to export special nuclear material noticed herein, the Commission does not evaluate the health, safety or environmental effects in the recipient nation of the material to be exported. The information concerning this application follows. NRC Export License Application
Description of material
End use
Country of 
                             destinationMaterial type
Total qtyName of Applicant; Date of Application:Transnuclear, Inc.; May 7, 2001
Highly-Enriched Uranium (93.34%)
32.36 kg Uranium/30.20 kg U-235
Fuel for BR-2 Research Reactor
Beligum.Date Received; Application Number:May 8, 2001; XSNM03192
 Dated this 18th day of May 2001 at Rockville, Maryland. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ronald D. Hauber, Deputy Director Office of International Programs.


[FR Doc. 01-13144 Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P