alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2006289EN.01001401.xml

| 19.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 289/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 289/14

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 82/2006

of 7 July 2006

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 29/2006 of 10 March 2006 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 29/2006 of 10 March 2006 (1).

| (2) | Commission Directive 2005/80/EC of 21 November 2005 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC, concerning cosmetic products, for the purposes of adapting Annexes II and III thereto to technical progress (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Directive 2005/80/EC of 21 November 2005 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC, concerning cosmetic products, for the purposes of adapting Annexes II and III thereto to technical progress (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 1 (Council Directive 76/768/EEC) of Chapter XVI of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32005 L 0080: Commission Directive 2005/80/EC of 21 November 2005 (OJ L 303, 22.11.2005, p. 32).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32005 L 0080: Commission Directive 2005/80/EC of 21 November 2005 (OJ L 303, 22.11.2005, p. 32).’

Article 2

The text of Directive 2005/80/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 8 July 2006, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 7 July 2006.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Oda Helen SLETNES

---

(1)  
  OJ L 147, 1.6.2006, p. 44.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 303, 22.11.2005, p. 32.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                         3,109                    
<SECURITIES>                     226
<RECEIVABLES>                  5,615
<ALLOWANCES>                    (134)
<INVENTORY>                        0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               9,429
<PP&E>                        83,822
<DEPRECIATION>                (5,950)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                99,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          7,810
<BONDS>                       53,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0    
<PREFERRED>                        1
<COMMON>                          29
<OTHER-SE>                    34,706
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  99,853
<SALES>                       10,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              10,626
<CGS>                          7,895
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  7,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               1,231
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             1,068
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  432
<INCOME-TAX>                     164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                0    
<DISCONTINUED>                     0     
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0   
<CHANGES>                          0    
<NET-INCOME>                     250
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    0.00 
<EPS-DILUTED>                    0.00    
        

</TABLE>
Clarence BARR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5576.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
H. R. 4200 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 321 South 

1st Street in Montrose, Colorado, as the ‘‘Sergeant David Kinterknecht Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SERGEANT DAVID KINTERKNECHT POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 321 South 1st Street in Montrose, Colorado, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sergeant David Kinterknecht 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Sergeant David Kinterknecht Post Office’’. 

(c) REPEAL OF PREVIOUS DESIGNATION.—Section 1 of Public 

Law 115–366 is hereby repealed, and the designation made and 

references deemed in subsections (a) and (b), respectively, of such 

section shall have no force or effect. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Brionne Alexander COVIL, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 17-6635.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Arthur Edward WILLIAMSON, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6249.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.1**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)I, Eric R. Zimmerman, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dayton Superior Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        May 14, 2007 /s/ Eric R. Zimmerman   Eric R. Zimmerman   President and Chief Executive Officer
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 04/13/10                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      531,189
COMMITMENTS
  41,476   18,462  118,569  347,415  371,098  507,460  508,129   23,729   23,060

CHANGES FROM 04/06/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      9,697)
   2,246   -7,095    8,395   -6,396    5,225    4,245    6,525    5,452    3,172

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     7.8      3.5     22.3     65.4     69.9     95.5     95.7      4.5      4.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      109)
      29       14       32       58       64      100       98
```

----

Updated April 16, 2010
*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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 1, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40298

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICHARD L. CRAIG; ROBIN L. ROSS,

also known as Twice R.,

Defendants-Appellants.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:01-CR-11-1

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

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This court affirmed the convictions and sentences of Richard

L. Craig. United States v. Craig, No. 04-40298 (5th Cir. Dec. 10,

2004) (unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for

further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S.

Ct. 738 (2005). See Craig v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1877
No. 04-40298

-2-

(2005). We requested and received supplemental letter briefs

addressing the impact of Booker. 

Craig argues that his sentence was plainly erroneous under

Booker. He concedes that our review is for plain error only

because no Sixth Amendment objection was made in the district

court. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.

2005), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).

There is no dispute that the first two prongs of the plain

error standard are satisfied; there was Sixth Amendment error and

the error was plain. See id. at 520-21. In order to meet the

third prong of the plain error standard, Craig must demonstrate

“that the sentencing judge--sentencing under an advisory scheme

rather than a mandatory one--would have reached a significantly

different result.” Id. at 521. 

The district court sentenced Craig at the top of the

guidelines range and there is no indication in the record what the

district court would have done had it known that the guidelines

were advisory. Craig’s argument that the district court would have

given him a lesser sentence because the facts did not support the

sentence enhancement he received is refuted by the record. Given

these circumstances, Craig has not met the third prong of the plain

error standard. See id. at 522. Craig’s arguments that the error

was structural and that prejudice should otherwise be presumed are

foreclosed. See United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 560 n.9
No. 04-40298

-3-

(5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 126 S. Ct. 194

(2005). 

Because nothing in the Supreme Court’s Booker decision

requires us to change our prior affirmance in this case, we

reinstate our judgment affirming Craig’s convictions and sentences.

AFFIRMED.
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.
 Department of Justice
 On April 13, 2022, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, in the lawsuit entitled 
                    *United States of America and Commonwealth of Kentucky*
                     v. 
                    *Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation,*
                     Civil Action No. 0:22-CV-00029-HRW. The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 42 U.S.C. 6928(a). The complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for nine alleged violations that occurred at a former coke production facility in Ashland, Kentucky. The alleged violations occurred between 2010 and 2012 when AK Steel Corporation owned the facility; AK Steel is now known as Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation. The Consent Decree requires the defendant to pay a $490,000 civil penalty, to conduct site-wide sampling and analysis, and to perform injunctive relief to clean up four specific locations at the facility. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to 
                    *United States et al.*
                     v. 
                    *Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corp.,*
                     D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-09449/1. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By email
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.*By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined at and downloaded from this Justice Department website: 
                    *https://www.justice.gov/​enrd/​consent-decrees.*
                     We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $143.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Jeffrey Sands, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2022-08373 Filed 4-19-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4034 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4034

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 602 Pacific Avenue in Bremerton, Washington, as the ``John Henry 
                     Turpin Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JOHN HENRY TURPIN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 602 Pacific Avenue in Bremerton, Washington, shall be known 
and designated as the ``John Henry Turpin Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John Henry 
Turpin Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4034

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 602 Pacific Avenue in Bremerton, Washington, as the ``John Henry 
                     Turpin Post Office Building''.
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 28, 2014

p0324 

# Order

Clerk March 28, 2014

147043

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147043

COA: 312606

Wayne CC: 12

- 000365

- FC

MELESSA LEE CURTIS a/k/a

MELESSA LEE HURLEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Eduardo Mendoza SOLARIO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6201.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Adam P. McNIECE, petitioner, v. CONNECTICUT, et al.

No. 17-271.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glenn L. Cooper, 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 the best of my knowledge: (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 result of operations of the Company.



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Glenn L. Cooper    
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer

Date: February 4, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34704-34705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16364]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 26, 2001.
    Time: 12:00 am to 5:00 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Hyatt Regency Hotel, 100 Bethesda Metro Center, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Robert H. Stretch, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 
5E01, MSC 7510, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6912.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 34705]]


    Dated: June 22, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-16364 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Jaime Shakur GARCIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5704.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

*642Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Darrell George FULTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6197.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Donald Ray CLINE, Jr., petitioner, v. NORTH CAROLINA.

No. 17-6614.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of North Carolina, Iredell County denied.