alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2007123EN.01002101.xml

| 12.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 123/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 123/21

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 526/2007

of 11 May 2007

on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/97 of 27 May 1997 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat (2),

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f).

| (2) | Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 at 11 500 t. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 at 11 500 t.

| (3) | It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   All applications for import licences from 1 to 5 May 2007 for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal as referred to in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 shall be granted in full.

2.   Applications for licences may be submitted, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 936/97, during the first five days of June 2007 for 9 751,474 t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 May 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 May 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 137, 28.5.1997, p. 10. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 317/2007 (OJ L 84, 24.3.2007, p. 4).

2

---
# L_2007172EN.01007001.xml

| 30.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 172/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 172/70

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 771/2007

of 29 June 2007

on the allocation of import rights for applications lodged for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 under tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 545/2007 for frozen beef intended for processing

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2) and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 545/2007 of 16 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for frozen beef intended for processing (1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008) (3) opened import tariff quotas for beef and veal products. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 545/2007 of 16 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for frozen beef intended for processing (1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008) (3) opened import tariff quotas for beef and veal products.

| (2) | The applications for import rights lodged for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 relate to quantities in excess of those available. The extent to which import rights may be granted should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient[s] to be applied to the quantities applied for should be laid down, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The applications for import rights lodged for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 relate to quantities in excess of those available. The extent to which import rights may be granted should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient[s] to be applied to the quantities applied for should be laid down,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for import rights lodged for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 under Regulation (EC) No 545/2007 shall be weighted by an allocation coefficient of 5,206706 % for rights under quota 09.4057 and of 34,204866 % for rights under quota 09.4058.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 June 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 June 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 289/2007 (OJ L 78, 17.3.2007, p. 17).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 129, 17.5.2007, p. 14.

3

---
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 SRKP 1, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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/ Richard Rappaport
         -----------------------------
         Richard Rappaport
         President (Principal Executive Officer)

         /s/ Glenn Krinsky
         -----------------------------
         /s/ Glenn Krinsky
         Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


November 15, 2004

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to SRKP 1, Inc. and will be retained by SRKP 1, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 65979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21743]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

October 25, 2005.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before December 1, 
2005 to be assured of consideration.

Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP)

    OMB Number: 1520-0001.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Owner's Affidavit of Partial Destruction of Mutilated 
Currency.
    Form: BEP form 5283.
    Description: The Office of Currency Standards, Bureau of Engraving 
and Printing requests owners of partially destroyed U.S. currency to 
complete a notarized affidavit (BEP 5283) for each claim submitted when 
substantial portions of notes are missing.
    Respondents: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 90 hours.
    OMB Number: 1520-0002.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Claims for Amounts Due in the Case of Deceased Owner of 
Mutilated Currency.
    Form: BEP form 5287.
    Description: The Office of Currency Standards, Bureau of Engraving 
and Printing uses form BEP 5287 to determine ownership in cases of a 
deceased owner mutilated currency.
    Respondents: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 110 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Pamela V. Grayson, (202) 874-2212, Bureau of 
Engraving and Printing, 14th & C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20228.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7316, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Michael A. Robinson,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21743 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4840-01-P
# C_2007182EN.01000601.xml

| 4.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4628 — Salzgitter/Vallourec)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 182/03)

On 26 June 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4628. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4628. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruno Marcos REYES-CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-51084.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Bruno Marcos Reyes-Cortez raises *622arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
<Page>

                                                               ARTHUR ANDERSEN



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports (and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of
this Registration Statement File No. 333-50465 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account Ten on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                   /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Richmond, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0819

Issued: October 20, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On May 23, 2023 appellant sought an appeal from a purported April 20, 2023 decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned Docket No. 23-0819.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed his appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final 

adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current 

appeal.3 As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date 

of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

Id.
2

exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as Docket No. 2 3-0819 must 

be dismissed.4 Accordingly

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as Docket No. 23-0819 is 

dismissed.

Issued: October 20, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 20 

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED SECURITY AND WARRANT


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO SECURIITES PURCHASE AGREEMENT is made and entered
into effective February 10, 2022 by and among Mullen Automotive, Inc., as successor to Mullen Technologies, Inc. a California corporation
(the “Company”), and ____________ (the “Holder”).


 


RECITALS:


 


A. The Company and Holders have entered into Securities Purchase Agreements
during 2021 under which the Company sold Series C Convertible Preferred Stock and Warrants to the Holders (collectively, the Securities
Purchase Agreements”).


 


B. The Company and the Holders desire to amend the Securities Purchase
Agreements to change the terms as follows.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for due and adequate consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


1. Effective Immediately:


 


The Holders irrevocably and forever waive their rights under section
2 (c) and 2 (d) of the Warrant, and under section 4 (c) of the Series C Convertible Preferred.


 


For purposes of section 1 (b), Exercise Price, in the Warrant, the
exercise price shall be modified from 0.6877 to $8.834.


 


In section 1 (d), Cashless Exercise, the definition of C= The
Closing Bid Price of the Common Stock as of two (2) Trading Days prior to the time of such exercise (as such Closing Bid Price is
defined in Section 16 herein), but in any event not less than $0.01(as may be adjusted for stock dividends, subdivisions, or
combinations in the manner described in Section 2(a) herein) shall be amended to


 


C= The lower of the two Closing Bid Prices of the Common Stock in
the two days prior the time of such exercise (as such Closing Bid Price is defined in Section 16 herein), but in any event not less than
$0.01(as may be adjusted for stock dividends, subdivisions, or combinations in the manner described in Section 2(a) herein).


 


Under Section 16 (b) of the Warrant, the definition of Black Scholes
Value shall be modified so that the Black Scholes Value shall be increased by $3.00 per Warrant. For example, if the calculations under
Section 16 resulted in a value of $7.72, as a result of this Amendment the Black Scholes Value would be increased to $10.72.


 


2. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions
in the Securities Purchase Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and this Amendment shall be governed by all provisions thereof.


 


3. This Amendment may be executed in separate counterparts, all of
which taken together shall constitute a single instrument.


 


4. This Amendment shall be governed, construed and interpreted in accordance
with the laws of the State of New York.


 


COMPANY:


 


MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE, INC.


 


	By:	 	 
	Name:	 David Michery	 
	Title:	CEO	 




 


HOLDER:


 





	By:	 	 
	Name:	  	 
	Title:
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of Ameriprise Certificate
Company (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
William F. Truscott, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Ross P.
Palacios, as Principal and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, 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 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.


Date: August 4, 2010                    By /s/ William F. Truscott
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           William F. Truscott
                                           Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 4, 2010                    By /s/ Ross P. Palacios
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Ross P. Palacios
                                           Chief Financial Officer
#### RICHARD W. PIDA, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

No. 20860

December 20, 1990

803 P.2d 229

*884
      *John G. Watkins,*Las Vegas for Appellant.

*Brian McKay,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Grenville Thomas Pridham,*Deputy Attorney General, Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Following a traffic stop for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, appellant submitted to a blood test which indicated a blood alcohol content of 0.26 percent. The arresting officer then sent an officer’s certification of cause to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), requesting revocation of appellant’s driving privileges. *See*NRS 484.385. Appellant requested an administrative hearing pursuant to NRS 484.387. On February 16, 1989, appellant was informed by the DMV that his driver’s license was revoked. On March 10, 1989, appellant filed in the district court a petition for judicial review. For reasons which are not clear, it does not appear that the state actually received a copy of this petition until July 25, 1989. Accordingly, the state moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was not timely served; that motion was denied by the district court. The state then filed an opposition to appellant’s petition. The district court affirmed the decision of the DMV hearing officer, and this appeal followed.

Appellant contends that the district court erred in affirming the *885decision of the hearing officer. Specifically, appellant notes that the tape recording of the administrative hearing was destroyed by the DMV. Appellant further notes that this tape recording constitutes almost the entire record in this case.

This contention has merit. In Nevada, judicial review of an administrative decision must be conducted by the court without a jury and be confined to the record. *See*NRS 233B.135. The decision of the administrative agency must be upheld if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record when the record is not before the court. *See*SIIS v. Thomas, 101 Nev. 293, 701 P.2d 1012 (1985). We conclude that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to review the administrative hearing in the absence of a record. The proper course of action would have been for the district court to vacate the decision of the DMV and remand this matter to the DMV for a new hearing.

Accordingly, we vacate the order entered below and remand to the district court with directions to remand this matter to the DMV for a new hearing. We have considered the issues raised by the state in its cross-appeal and conclude that they are without merit.