alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007169EN.01000101.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 169/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 169/1

---

COMMISSION OPINION

COMMISSION OPINION

of 19 July 2007

concerning the amended plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Dampierre nuclear power station in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(only the French text is authentic)

(2007/C 169/01)

On 17 November 2006, the European Commission received from the Government of France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the amended plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Dampierre nuclear power station.

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 plant and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Belgium, is approximately 275 km. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The distance between the plant and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Belgium, is approximately 275 km.

| 2. | The planned modification will lead to a general decrease of the gaseous and liquid discharge limits except for liquid tritium for which an increase is foreseen. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The planned modification will lead to a general decrease of the gaseous and liquid discharge limits except for liquid tritium for which an increase is foreseen.

| 3. | During normal operation, the planned modification will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in other Member States. |
| --- | --- |

3.

During normal operation, the planned modification will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in other Member States.

| 4. | In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents resulting from an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the initial General Data, the planned modification to the fuel management system will not give rise to doses in other Member States liable to affect the health of the population. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents resulting from an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the initial General Data, the planned modification to the fuel management system will not give rise to doses in other Member States liable to affect the health of the population.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the amended plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form from the Dampierre nuclear power station, 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 the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1254-1255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-216]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


National Advisory Council on Migrant Health; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:

    Name: National Advisory Council on Migrant Health.
    Dates and Times: January 26, 2005, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., January 27, 
2005, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: DoubleTree Hotel San Diego-Mission Valley, 7450 Hazard 
Center Drive, San Diego, California 92108, Phone: (619) 297-5466; 
Fax: (619) 297-5499.
    Status: The meeting will be open to the public.
    Agenda: The agenda includes an overview of the Council's general 
business activities. The Council will also hear presentations from 
experts on farmworker issues, including the status of farmworker 
health at the local and national level. In addition, the Council 
will be holding a public hearing at which migrant farmworkers, 
community leaders, and providers will have the opportunity to 
testify before the Council regarding matters that affect the health 
of migrant farmworkers. The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, 
January 27, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, at the DoubleTree Hotel San 
Diego-Mission Valley.
    The Council meeting is being held in conjunction with the 14th 
Annual Western Migrant Stream Forum sponsored by the Northwest 
Regional Primary Care Association, which is being held in San Diego, 
California, during the same period of time.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities indicate.
    For Further Information Contact: Anyone requiring information 
regarding the Council should contact Gladys Cate, Office of Minority 
and Special Populations, staff support to the National Advisory Council 
on Migrant Health, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and 
Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,

[[Page 1255]]

Room 15-99, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone (301) 594-0367.

    Dated: December 28, 2004.
Steven A. Pelovitz,
Associate Administrator for Administration and Financial Management.
[FR Doc. 05-216 Filed 1-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
#### RALPH J. CRESCENT, Appellant, v. GILL WHITE, Also Known as GARLAND WHITE, and DOROTHY E. WHITE, Also Known as DOROTHY E. NORD, Respondents.

No. 7219

March 28, 1975

533 P.2d 159

*Stokes & Eck, Ltd.,*and *F. Thomas Eck,*Carson City, for Appellant.

*Diehl, Recanzone, Evans & Smart*and *Mario G. Recanzone,*of Fallon, for Respondent, Dorothy E. White.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant commenced this action to set aside, as a fraudulent conveyance under NRS 112.050, a certain deed executed by respondent Gill White to his wife, Dorothy E. White. The *210district court, pursuant to NRCP 41(b), dismissed the complaint against Dorothy E. White. Appellant, contending the district court erred, asks us to reverse.

We do not reach the merits, if any, of the issues raised in the appeal. During oral argument the court, *sua sponte,*raised the question of appealability of the judgment, because of appellant’s failure to comply with the requirement of NRCP 54(b).1

This court has repeatedly held that a judgment or order that fails to adjudicate all the claims and the rights and liabilities of the parties is not appealable, absent the express determination that there is no just reason for delay, as required by NRCP 54(b). See, for example, First Western Savings v. Steinberg & Clemens, 89 Nev. 582, 517 P.2d 793 (1973); King v. Baskin, 89 Nev. 290, 511 P.2d 115 (1973); Monsour v. Haddad, 87 Nev. 448, 488 P.2d 916 (1971). The express determination was neither requested nor made in this case; therefore, the judgment dismissing the complaint against Dorothy White is not appealable. Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the parties after a final judgment is entered in the trial court. Cf. Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Brunsing, 378 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1967).2

1

NRCP 54(b) reads in part: “When more than one claim for relief is presented ... or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order . . . which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action . . . and the order ... is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” .

2

 _ “The Governor, pursuant to Article VI, § 4 of the Constitution, designated .District fudge. J. Charles Thompson to participate in this case in lieu of Mi*. Justice Batjer, who Voluntarily disqualified.
Exhibit 12


          INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

            Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                  (unaudited)

                                 (in thousands)



                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                       ------------------
                                       May 31,     May 31,
                                         1999        1998
---------------------------------------------------------
Earnings (loss) from
  continuing operations
  before income taxes                 $ 7,359    $(22,128)
Plus: Fixed charges (1)                 7,005       6,078
Less: Capitalized interest               (124)          -
---------------------------------------------------------

Earnings available to cover
  fixed charges (2)                   $14,240    $(16,050)
=========================================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (2)   2.03         N/A
=========================================================

(1) Fixed charges consisted of the following:


                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                       ------------------
                                       May 31,     May 31,
                                         1999        1998
---------------------------------------------------------
Interest expense, gross                $4,595      $3,833
Rentals (Interest factor)               2,410       2,245
---------------------------------------------------------
  Total fixed charges                  $7,005      $6,078
=========================================================


(2) For the three months ended May 31, 1998, earnings were inadequate to
cover fixed charges by $22,128.  The deficiency was the result of
unusual items as described in Note 4 to the consolidated condensed
financial statements.  Excluding unusual items, the ratio of earnings to
fixed charges would have been 2.12 for the three months ended May 31,
1998.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               FISCAL YEAR
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 1999             1998             1997            1996            1995
                               ---------       ---------        ---------        ---------       ---------
<S>                            <C>             <C>              <C>              <C>             <C>
Income (loss) before
  provision (benefit)
  for taxes on income          $   2,756       $(430,328)       $ 179,762        $ 197,161       $ 110,487

Add - Fixed charges
  net of capitalized
  interest                        15,283           5,795            3,984            2,022           1,566
                               ---------       ---------        ---------        ---------       ---------

Income before taxes
  and fixed charges
  (net of capitalized
  interest)                       18,039        (424,533)         183,746          199,183         112,053
                               ---------       ---------        ---------        ---------       ---------

Fixed charges:

Interest (1)                      10,800              --               --               --              --

Capitalized interest               1,511              --               --               --              --

Estimated interest
  component of rental
  expense                          4,483           5,795            3,984            2,022           1,566
                               ---------       ---------        ---------        ---------       ---------
Total                             16,794           5,795            3,984            2,022           1,566
                               ---------       ---------        ---------        ---------       ---------

Ratio of earnings before
  taxes and fixed charges,
  to fixed charges                   1.1              --(2)          46.1             98.5            71.6
                               =========       =========        =========        =========       =========
</TABLE>

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

(1)  Interest expense includes the amortization of underwriting fees for the
     relevant periods outstanding

(2)  As a result of the loss incurred for fiscal year 1998, the Company was
     unable to fully cover fixed charges. The amount of such deficiency in
     fiscal 1998 was approximately $5.8 million
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5179 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to make clear that family coverage 

under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program remains available 

with respect to an otherwise eligible child of a Federal employee or 

annuitant until that child attains 26 years of age, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2010 

Mrs. DAHLKEMPER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to make clear that 

family coverage under the Federal Employees Health 

Benefits Program remains available with respect to an 

otherwise eligible child of a Federal employee or annuitant until that child attains 26 years of age, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEPENDENT COVERAGE UNDER 

4 FEHBP. 

5 (a) PROVISIONS RELATING TO AGE.—Chapter 89 of 

6 title 5, United States Code, is amended— 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5179 IH

1 (1) in section 8901(5)— 

2 (A) in the matter before subparagraph (A), 

3 by striking ‘‘22 years of age’’ and inserting ‘‘26 

4 years of age’’; and 

5 (B) in the matter after subparagraph (B), 

6 by striking ‘‘age 22’’ and inserting ‘‘age 26’’; 

7 and 

8 (2) in section 8905(c)(2)(B)— 

9 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘22 years of 

10 age’’ and inserting ‘‘26 years of age’’; and 

11 (B) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘age 22’’ and 

12 inserting ‘‘age 26’’. 

13 (b) PROVISIONS RELATING TO MARITAL STATUS.— 

14 Chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, is further 

15 amended— 

16 (1) in section 8901(5) and subsections 

17 (b)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B), (e)(1)(B), and (e)(2)(A) of sec18 tion 8905a, by striking ‘‘an unmarried dependent’’ 

19 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘a dependent’’; 

20 and 

21 (2) in section 8905(c)(2)(B), by striking ‘‘un22 married dependent’’ and inserting ‘‘dependent’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5179 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall become effective on the date of the enact3 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0956

_____________________________
D UWAYNE J ONES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Su wannee County

. Mark E. Feagle , Judge

. July 19, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , K ELSEY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Duwayne Jones, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
**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 Otelco Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael D. Weaver, 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 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 results of operations of the
                Company.





/s/
                  Michael D. WeaverMichael
                  D. WeaverChief
                  Executive OfficerAugust
                  8, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21353]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES


Economic Impact Policy

    This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank has 
received an application to finance the export of $14.9 million of 
equipment and other goods and services to a buyer in Portugal. The U.S. 
exports will enable the Portuguese company to produce photovoltaic 
solar modules. The Portuguese company will have a production capacity 
of 5 megawatts per year, with initial production to commence in 2006. 
It is envisioned that most of this new production will be consumed in 
Portugal, Spain, Germany and Italy, with smaller amounts anticipated to 
be sold in other European countries, Africa and Latin America. 
Interested parties may submit comments on this transaction by e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4520262a2b2a282c266b2c283524263105203d2c286b222a33"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3752545859585a5e54195e5a4756544377524f5e5a19505841">[email protected]</span></a> or by mail to 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 
1238, Washington, DC 20571, within 14 days of the date this notice 
appears in the Federal Register.

Helene S. Walsh,
Director, Policy Oversight and Review.
[FR Doc. 05-21353 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Adolph Humpfner, Appellant, *v.*Lucius H. Beers et al., Individually and as Trustees under the Will of Robert R. Stuyvesant, Deceased, Respondents.

*Humpfner*v. *Beers,’*171 App. Div. 184, affirmed.

(Argued October 28, 1918;

decided November 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment, entered March 11, 1916, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme ■Court in the first judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and directing a dismissal of the complaint in an action to compel specific performance of an agreement to renew a lease. By way of defense the defendants pleaded, among other things, the tender of a lease in the form claimed by the plaintiff, except for the insertion of the following clause: “ It is expressly covenanted and agreed by the parties hereto that the making and delivery of this lease shall not operate to create any easement over or with respect to the lands of the parties of .the first part lying between the demised premises and Seventeenth street, unless such easement legally existed as against the owners of the fee of said land prior to the date and delivery of these presents.” As a basis for' this defense the defendants pleaded that under the will of Robert R. Stuyvesant, deceased, they were, as trustees, the owners of the premises immediately to the north of the premises described in said lease, and that the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to maintain a sewer over their said premises, which right the defendants denied. The defendants claimed that the renewal lease so tendered to the plaintiff demised and leased every right and interest which the plaintiff was entitled to receive under the existing lease for the renewal of which provision was made therein, and claimed that without *682the clause referred to the renewal lease would create over other land of the defendants an easement to which the plaintiff was not entitled. The defendants by way of counterclaim pleaded their continued readiness and willingness to deliver to the plaintiff a renewal lease containing the clause in question, and demanded judgment dismissing the complaint and directing the defendants to execute and deliver a renewal lease in the form annexed to the answer. The plaintiff in a reply claimed that the premises owned by the defendants to the north of the premises described in the complaint were subject to easements for the maintenance of sewer, water pipes, party wall and other easements existing in favor of the plaintiff and his predecessors in title.

*Harry N. Selvage*and *Leo Schafran*for appellant.

*Howard Mansfield*and *Henry de Forest Baldwin*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Cardozo and Andrews, JJ. Dissenting: Chase, Cuddeback and Pound, JJ.