alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17990]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration


International Standards on the Transport of Dangerous Goods; 
Public Meetings

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise interested persons that PHMSA will 
conduct a public meeting in preparation for the twentieth meeting of 
the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Dangerous Goods 
Panel to be held October 24-November 4, 2005 in Montreal, Canada.

DATES: Tuesday, October 18, 2005, 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: DOT Headquarters, Nassif Building, Room 6332, 400 Seventh 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bob Richard, Director, Office of 
International Standards, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety and 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of 
Transportation, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-0656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary purpose of this public meeting 
will be to discuss draft U.S. positions on the proposals that will be 
considered during the 20th Meeting of the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel 
(DGP 20). Agenda items include:
    Agenda Item 1: Development of proposals; if necessary, for 
amendments to Annex 18--The Safety Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air;
    Agenda Item 2: Development of recommendations for amendments to the 
Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air 
(Doc 9284) for incorporation in the 2007-2008 Edition;
    Agenda Item 3: Development of recommendations for amendments to the 
Supplement to the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of 
Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc. 9284) for incorporation in the 2007-2008 
Edition;
    Agenda Item 4: Amendments to Emergency Response Guidence for 
Aircraft Incidents Involving Dangerous Goods (Doc 9481); and
    Agenda Item 5: Resolution, where possible, of the non-recurrent 
work items identified by the Commission or the panel;
    (a) Principles governing the transport of dangerous goods on cargo 
only aircraft;
    (b) Reformatting of the packing instructions; and
    (c) Review of provisions for dangerous goods carried by passengers 
and crew.
    For more information on the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel visit 
PHMSA's International Standards Web site at http://hazmat.dot.gov/regs/intl/intstandards.htm.

Robert A. McGuire,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-17990 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-M
STATE of North Carolina v. Sheila NEWMAN.

No. 561P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

C. Scott Holmes, Durham, for Newman.

Chris Z. Sinha, Assistant Attorney General, Sam Currin, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: 186 N.C.App. 382, 651 S.E.2d 584.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of November 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
# C_2023338EN.01001401.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/14

---

Action brought on 8 August 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-512/23)

(2023/C 338/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in its entirety Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in its entirety Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism (1)

| — | order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Poland invokes against the contested Regulation 2023/956 a plea in law alleging infringement of point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 192(2) TFEU in so far as that regulation is incorrectly based on Article 192(1) TFEU, whereas the measures it lays down establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism (‘CBAM’) are provisions of a primarily fiscal nature.

The contested regulation lays down taxation rules, and in any event fiscal provisions. Both the objective and nature of the provisions introducing the CBAM are above all fiscal. The provisions of the contested regulation establish a new public charge and set out all the conditions for its collection. The fiscal function of the CBAM takes precedence over the environmental function of that measure. In addition, unlike the Emission Trading System (ETS) of the European Union, the CBAM is not a market-based measure and, therefore, the conditions set out in the Court’s case-law, which preclude a measure which forms part of the EU ETS from being regarded as a fiscal measure, are not satisfied.

---

(1)  
  OJ 2023 L 130, p. 52

---
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 05-30422

v. D.C. No. 

AHMED CR-99-00666-001- RESSAM, also known as

Benni Antoine Noris, JCC

Defendant-Appellee. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

No. 05-30441 Plaintiff-Appellee,

D.C. No.

v.  CR-99-00666-001-

AHMED RESSAM, also known as JCC

Benni Antoine Noris, ORDER Defendant-Appellant. 

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed August 15, 2008

Before: Arthur L. Alarcón, Pamela Ann Rymer, and

Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The mandate of the United States Supreme Court having

issued on Ahmed Ressam’s appeal from his conviction for

carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(h)(2)(1994), United States v.

Ressam, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1858 (2008), we must now

10717
reach the government’s challenge to the reasonableness of

Ressam’s sentence. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th

Cir. 2007) (en banc), was decided after sentence was imposed

in this case and, among other things, Carty makes clear that

all sentencing proceedings must begin by determining the

applicable Guidelines range. Id. at 993. This was not done

here. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for

resentencing in accordance with Carty. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.

10718 UNITED STATES v. RESSAM

PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
Bryant T. DENNINGS v. Earl R. BUTLER, Cumberland Co., and State of North Carolina.

No. 362P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 29, 2015.

Bryant T. Dennings, for Dennings, Bryant T.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 27th of October 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following *763order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Cumberland County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of October 2015."
----

(2004/C 78 E/0409)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1827/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Reduced VAT on the rent or purchase of video cassettes and DVDs

Video cassette and DVD purchases have greatly stimulated the dissemination of culture, benefiting in particular the European film industry, since high-quality reproduction can be obtained from equipment which is reliable, easy to use and inexpensive.

The vitality of this sector is reflected by a 20 % increase in demand for rent or purchase in 2002 compared with the previous year. Despite the high level of demand for cultural products of this nature, further expansion is being hampered by high VAT rates with no reductions as is the case with cinema entrance tickets and pay television, for example.

Does the Commission intend to extend Annex H of the sixth VAT directive (Directive 77/388/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 2001/4/EC (2)), removing or reducing VAT on video cassette and DVD-related goods and services so as to support the European film industry?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Under the Sixth VAT Directive (3) as it stands, all Member States must apply the standard rate to rentals and purchases of video cassettes and DVDs. This ensures that taxes on these products are to some degree harmonised throughout the Community (though the standard rate varies between Member States from 15 % to 25 %). Reduced rates are optional for Member States and introducing this option for video cassettes and DVDs would only increase the differences in rates applied across the Community.

The Commission intends to present a proposal for a Directive on reduced VAT rates before the summer of 2004. The primary purpose of the proposal will be to improve the functioning of the single market by rationalising the way Member States use reduced rates. The aim is to avoid potential distortions in competition by giving all Member States the same opportunity to apply reduced rates.

In the lead-up to the forthcoming revision of reduced rates, the case for extending their scope will be carefully examined.

----

(1)OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 22, 24.1.2001, p. 17.

(3)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, as last amended by Council Directive 2002/92/EC of 3 December 2002, OJ L 331, 7.12.2002.

----
STATE v. Charles Anthony BALL.

No. 102P13-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Charles Anthony Ball, Spruce Pine, for Ball, Charles Anthony.

Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of May 2015 by Defendant for Change of Venue:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
IN RE C.D.L.

COA06-976.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 15, 2007.

Certification Date June 4, 2007.

Appeal from Catawba (04J271).

Case reported without published opinion. Appeal dismissed in part and affirmed in part.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5192-5193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1823]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
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 Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Transitional Research 
for the Prevention and Control of diabetes.
    Date: March 23, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

[[Page 5193]]

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Marriott Bethesda North Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 
Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Michele L. Barnard, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of 
Health, Room 753, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 
(301) 594-8898,@barnardmextra.niddk.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 25, 2005.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-1823 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
STATE v. CLOUD.

No. COA08-555.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (06CRS64103, 07CRS3067).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. DUANE.

No. COA08-141.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 19, 2008.

Certification Date September 8, 2008.

Appeal from Burke (06CRS5484).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
**RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.**

**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Scott H. Rechler, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director**

**of Reckson Associates Realty Corp., the sole general partner of the Registrant**

**Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**

I, Scott H. Rechler, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Office and Director of Reckson Associates Realty Corp., the sole general partner of Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. (the “Company”), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

|   | 1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: November 13, 2006 |   |     |
|--------------------------|--------|----------|
|                          |   | By  | /s/ Scott H. Rechler |
|                     |   |     |  

 

 

Scott H. Rechler,

Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Reckson Associates Realty Corp., the sole general partner of the Registrant

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
STATE of North Carolina. v. Tracy Lamont CLARK.

No. 13P11-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Tracy Lamont Clark, for Clark, Tracy Lamont.

Philip E. Berger, Jr., District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 20th of May 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Rockingham County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54396-54397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18170]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the tenth and 
final meeting of the Commission on Systemic Interoperability.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.
    The mission of the Commission on Systemic Interoperability is to 
submit a report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and to 
Congress on a comprehensive strategy for the adoption and 
implementation of health care information technology standards that 
includes a timeline and prioritization for such adoption and 
implementation. In developing that strategy, the

[[Page 54397]]

Commission will consider: (1) The costs and benefits of the standards, 
both financial impact and quality improvement; (2) The current demand 
on industry resources to implement the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 and other electronic 
standards, including HIPAA standards; and (3) The most cost-effective 
and efficient means for industry to implement the standards.
    Name of Committee: Commission on Systemic Interoperability.
    Date: October 25, 2005.
    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: Healthcare Information Technology Standards.
    Place: Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216, Constitution Avenue, 
Washington, DC 20510.
    Contact Person: Ms. Dana Haza, Director, Commission on Systemic 
Interoperability, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of 
Health, Building 38, Room 2N21, Bethesda, MD 20894, 301-594-7520, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed858c978c89ad808c8481c3838485c38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe969f849f9abe939f9792d0909796d0999188">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee 
by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this 
notice. The comments should include the name, address, telephone 
number, and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation 
of the interested person.

    Dated: September 2, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-18170 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00008

- CV

RUTH HOWARD APPELLANT

V.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MOR TGAGE

ASSOCIATION A/K/A FA NNIE MAE APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COU NTY

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



### ME MORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

On March 15, 2013, we notified appellant that the trial court clerk

responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court that

payment arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s reco rd as

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2). See Tex. R. App. P.

35.3(a)(2). We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

unless appellant, within ten days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s

record and prov ided this court with proof of payment.

Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s

record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want

of prosecution. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

37.3(b), 42.3(b).

Appellant shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: April 25, 2013
#### In the Matter of Martin D. Kelley, Appellant, v Marilyn A. Kelley, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[801 NYS2d 194]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Martha Walsh Hood, J.), entered May 28, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied petitioner’s objections to an order of the Support Magistrate dated February 6, 2004.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Family Court. Present—Scudder, J.E, Martoche, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
** **

**Exhibit32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

                Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of ERP Operating Limited Partnership (“ERPOP”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, DavidJ. Neithercut, Chief Executive Officer of Equity Residential, general partnerof ERPOP, certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of ERPOP.

 

 

 

 

 

 
| /s/        | David J. Neithercut                      |
|------------|------------------------------------------|
|       | David J. Neithercut                      |
|       | Chief Executive Officer                  |
| ** ** | **of Registrant’s General Partner** |
| ** ** | **November 7, 2007**                     |

 

----
STANTON BARRETT MOTORSPORTS, LLC v. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES CORP. OF AMERICA, INC.

No. COA08-983.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Cabarrus (07CVS284).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.