alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
54604 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research 

and Development and Clinical Science 

Research and Development Services 

Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice 

of Meetings 

The Department of Veterans Affairs 

gives notice under the Public Law 92–

463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) 

that subcommittees of the Joint 

Biomedical Laboratory Research and 

Development and Clinical Science 

Research and Development Services 

Scientific Merit Review Board will meet 

from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. as indicated 

below. 

Gulf War Research A—September 16, 

2005, State Plaza Hotel, 2117 E Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 

Gulf War Research B—September 30, 

2005, Churchill Hotel, 1914 

Connecticut Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 

The purpose of the Board is to 

provide expert review on the scientific 

quality, budget, safety and mission 

relevance of investigator-initiated 

research proposals submitted for merit 

review consideration and to provide 

advice on research program priorities 

and policies. Proposals submitted for 

review by the Board involve a wide 

range of medical specialties within the 

general areas of biomedical, behavioral 

and clinic science research. The meeting 

noted above will focus on proposals 

submitted in response to Request for 

Proposals Directed to Understanding 

Illnesses Affecting Gulf War Veterans. 

The meetings will be open to the 

public for approximately thirty minutes 

at the start of each meeting to discuss 

the general status of the program. The 

remaining portion of each meeting will 

be closed to the public for the review, 

discussion, and evaluation of initial and 

renewal projects. 

The closed portion of the meetings 

involves discussion, examination, 

reference to staff and consultant 

critiques of research protocols. During 

this portion of the meetings, discussion 

and recommendations will deal with 

qualifications of personnel conducting 

the studies, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy, as well as 

research information, the premature 

disclosure of which could significantly 

frustrate implementation of proposed 

agency action regarding such research 

projects. 

As provided by subsection 10(d) of 

Public Law 92–463, as amended, closing 

portions of these meetings is in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C., 552b(c) (6) 

and (9)(B). Those who plan to attend or 

would like to obtain a copy of minutes 

of the meetings should contact William 

J. Goldberg, Ph.D., Department of 

Veterans Affairs (121E), 810 Vermont 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 at 

(202) 254–0294. 

Dated: September 9, 2005. 

By direction of the Secretary. 

E. Philip Riggin, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–18289 Filed 9–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–M
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 I, David P. Carlson, certify that:  1)
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc.;2)
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3)
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included 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 periods presented in this
report;4)
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining 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 such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and  5)
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. Date:
March 25, 2005/s/ David P. CarlsonDavid P. Carlson
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Muhammad Ashraf Ali, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 910]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated February 2, 1998 *(People v Ali,*247 AD2d 396 [1998]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered August 15, 1994.

Ordered that the application is denied.

*566The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see *Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). H. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Luciano, JJ., concur.
STATE v. AUGUSTINE, Golphin, and Walters.

No. 139PA13-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 7, 2016.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Jay H. Ferguson, Durham, for Augustine, Quintel, et al.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr.

James E. Ferguson, II, Charlotte, for Augustine, Quintel, et al.

Cassandra Stubbs, for Augustine, Quintel, et al.

William P. Hart, Sr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Robert P. Mosteller, for Retired Members of the North Carolina Judiciary.

James Patrick Longest, Jr., for North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

Irving Joyner, for North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

Theresa A. Newman, for North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

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

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

*Amended*

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of January 2016 by Defendants for Clarification:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of January 2016."

BEASLEY, J., and ERVIN, J., recused.
# The Brucellosis Control (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2014 No. 266

Animals

# The Brucellosis Control (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014

Made

24th October 2014

Coming into operation

3rd November 2014

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development F1 makes the following Order in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Articles 10(6), 19 and 60(1) of the Diseases of Animals                           (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 F2.                        

F1The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland was renamed the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development by Article                              3(4) of the Departments (NI) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/283 (N.I.1))

F2S.I. 1981/1115 (N.I. 22) as amended by S.I. 1984/702 (N.I. 2) Art. 17, S.I. 1994/1891 (N.I. 6) Arts. 20 and 23, S.R. 1994 No. 11, S.R. 2004 No. 362 and S.R. 2006 No. 41 and the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2010 (c.1)

## Citation and commencementN.I.

1.  This Order may be cited as the Brucellosis Control (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 and shall come into operation                     on 3rd November 2014.                  

## Amendment of the Brucellosis Control Order (Northern Ireland) 2004N.I.

2.  The Brucellosis Control Order (Northern Ireland) 2004 F3 shall be amended as follows—                  

(a)In Article 5(1)(a) for the number “12” there shall be substituted the number “ 24 ”.                  

(b)In Articles 5 and 20 for each occurrence of the number “30” there shall be substituted the number “ 60 ”.                  

F3S.R. 2004 No. 361; as amended by S.R. 2005 No. 585 and S.R. 2012 No. 315

Sealed with the Official Seal of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on 24th October 2014

L.S.

Geraldine Fee

 A senior officer of the

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

## Explanatory Note

(This note is not part of the Order)

This Order amends the Brucellosis Control Order (Northern Ireland) 2004 (S.R. 2004 No. 361) by increasing the age threshold for pre-movement testing from 12 to 24 months, and extending the window for a single                        movement from 30 to 60 days.
32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Ralph M. Amato, Chief Executive Officer of BoysToys.com, Inc. (the "Small Business Issuer") do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that:



(1) 	The Small Business Issuer's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") to which this statement is filed as an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Small Business Issuer.





|By:  /s/ Ralph M. Amato     Ralph M. Amato
     Chief Executive Officer | Dated:  May 23, 2005
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------
# CE2004078EN.01039901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/399 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/399

---

(2004/C 78 E/0421)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2173/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Compliance with EU legislation on asbestos

Subject:

In its reply to Written Question E-1551/03 (1) the Commission stated that it intended to contact the Portuguese authorities with a view to ensuring that appropriate action is taken in order to enforce Community legislation on asbestos — thereby justifying the concern felt by the author of this question.

1

Would the Commission say when it intends to ‘ensure that the Portuguese authorities] take the necessary measures to enforce the Directive in question’?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 2003)

(9 December 2003)

As indicated in its initial reply, the Commission has contacted the Portuguese authorities in order to check the allegations concerning a possible labelling error on items placed on the Portuguese market containing chrysotile asbestos (which was added intentionally).

After conducting an investigation of the sector concerned, the Portuguese authorities have informed the Commission that they have not discovered any asbestos-based items on the Portuguese market which have been wrongly labelled or whose labels infringed the Community provisions in force.

As a result, on the basis of the information in its possession, the Commission cannot at present support the argument that Portuguese items containing chrysotile asbestos have been incorrectly labelled.

---

(1)  See page 37.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17825]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Kaibab National Forest; Arizona; Cancellation of Notice of Intent 
To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Expansion of the 
Bill Williams Ski Area

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of intent to prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement for expansion of the Bill Williams Ski Area.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 
(USDA, FS), Region 3, Kaibab National Forest, announces the 
cancellation of its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) for expansion of the Bill Williams Ski Area. The Notice of Intent 
to prepare this EIS was published in the Federal Register Volume 62, 
No. 223 on November 19, 1997, page 61726. The notice of availability 
for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register Volume 64, No. 
246 on December 23, 1999, pages 72078 and 72079. The environmental 
analysis process for this project has been terminated and a decision on 
the proposed action is no longer necessary.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz Schuppert at USDA, FS Kaibab 
National Forest, 800 S. 6th St., Williams, AZ 86046, 928/635-8200.

    Dated: August 18, 2005.
Mike R. Williams,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-17825 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
----

(2004/C 33 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1860/03

by Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   State aid for football clubs

A number of professional football clubs in the Netherlands have recently received financial assistance from local authorities to rescue them from the threat of bankruptcy. Similar practices occur in other Member States. Local politicians are under heavy pressure from clubs and supporters, in the face of a lack of clarity surrounding European competition rules.

Does the Commission agree with the author of this question that the provision of financial assistance to football clubs by the authorities (state aid) leads to distortion of competition on the European football market?

How does the Commission define the European football market, and where does it consider the dividing line between national football markets and the European market to lie? Does it regard only the market for players as important, or does the football market have other aspects that are relevant to competition?

Is the Commission prepared — in the light of the fact that, taking advantage of the lack of clarity surrounding the permissibility of assistance, the authorities in the Netherlands, and also in other Member States, are currently assisting football clubs by a variety of means — to submit as soon as possible a communication laying down the necessary framework conditions for assistance to football clubs, so as to put an end to the present situation characterised by a lack of clarity and by distortion of competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty stipulates that ‘aid granted by a Member State, which distorts competition by favouring a specific undertaking, shall insofar as it affects trade between Member States be incompatible with the common market’.

Professional football clubs that engage in economic activities, like selling broadcasting rights, concluding advertising and sponsorship contracts and distributing merchandising articles are to be considered undertakings. A transfer of financial resources to certain professional football clubs is likely to distort competition between these undertakings.

The question is not whether there is a European football market though, but whether the mentioned activities are subject to trade between Member States. Not all football clubs are performing all these activities. In addition, it seems that not in all of these cases an effect on trade between Member States can be established.

Since the application of state aid rules is relatively new in this sector, the Commission maintains that its policy has to be developed on the basis of individual cases. In its practice up to now the Commission has, in certain cases, not objected to subsidies in this sector when the state subsidies served an educational objective or the aid was granted for the construction of stadiums which can be under certain conditions considered as general infrastructure. The Commission will continue to develop and clarify its policy in this area, when dealing with specific cases.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          31,902
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,233
<ALLOWANCES>                                       348
<INVENTORY>                                      6,336
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,897
<PP&E>                                         178,372
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,857
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 251,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,249
<BONDS>                                         83,308
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     21,400
<COMMON>                                            94
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,008
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   251,672
<SALES>                                         37,632
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,632
<CGS>                                           28,176
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,176
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,049
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    54
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,829
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,829
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,829
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01045602.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/456 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/456

---

(2004/C 88 E/0468)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3249/03

by Richard Howitt (PSE), Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) and Renate Sommer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Annual report on Turkey

Subject:

Will the Commission address the following urgent questions in its annual report on Turkey's progress towards meeting EU accession criteria due on 5 November:

| 1. | Do the Host Government Agreements for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline breach the terms of Turkey's Accession Partnership by moving away from the ‘acquis communautaire’ and the prospect of implementing the Copenhagen criteria? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the Host Government Agreements for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline breach the terms of Turkey's Accession Partnership by moving away from the ‘acquis communautaire’ and the prospect of implementing the Copenhagen criteria?

| 2. | Does this project potentially infringe the human rights and minority rights of the people living along the pipeline route in Turkey, such as through the expropriation of land without proper compensation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does this project potentially infringe the human rights and minority rights of the people living along the pipeline route in Turkey, such as through the expropriation of land without proper compensation?

| 3. | What is the potential environmental impact of the project, and has a proper environmental impact assessment been carried out? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the potential environmental impact of the project, and has a proper environmental impact assessment been carried out?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-3247/03 and E-3249/03

given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

(19 November 2003)

In its regular report on Turkey's progress towards accession published on 5 November 2003 (1), the Commission sets out its assessment of developments over the last year and the overall situation with regard to human rights and the protection of minorities.

1

As regards the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member concerning the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline project, any potential violations as regards human rights or the protection of minorities arising from the implementation of the pipeline project would have to be considered in the context of the Copenhagen political criteria. Turkey is at this stage not bound by the environmental ‘acquis’, but the Commission is aware that environmental impact assessments have been carried out for this project, for example, to meet the conditions of international lending organisations.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 676 final.

1

---
Exhibit 10.3





Scottish Power plc


Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)





Pursuant to
the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as follows:





1.  I am the Chief Executive of Scottish Power plc (the Company).





2.  To the best of my knowledge:





(A)  The Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2002 accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act); and





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





Dated:    August 28, 2002





LOGOIan Russell Chief
Executive