alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3115. Youth employment policies and programs

#### (a) Congressional findings

The Congress finds and declares—

(1) That 1 serious unemployment and economic disadvantage of a unique nature exist among youths even under generally favorable economic conditions;

(2) that this group constitutes a substantial portion of the Nation's unemployment, and that this significantly contributes to crime, alcoholism and drug abuse, and other social and economic problems; and

(3) that many youths have special employment needs and problems which, if not promptly addressed, will substantially contribute to more severe unemployment problems in the long run.

#### (b) Improvement and expansion

To the extent deemed necessary in fulfillment of the purposes of this chapter, the President shall improve and expand existing youth employment programs, recommending legislation where required. In formulating any such program, the President shall—

(1) include provisions designed to fully coordinate youth employment activities with other employment and training programs;

(2) develop a smoother transition from school to work;

(3) prepare disadvantaged and other youths with employability handicaps for regular self-sustaining employment;

(4) develop realistic methods for combining training with work; and

(5) develop provisions designed to attract structurally unemployed youth into productive full-time employment through incentives to private and independent sector businesses; 2

(Pub. L. 95–523, title II, §205, Oct. 27, 1978, 92 Stat. 1901.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

For definition of "this chapter", referred to in subsec. (b), see References in Text note set out under section 3102 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should not be capitalized.

2 So in original. The semicolon probably should be a period.
### §78aaa. Short title

This chapter may be cited as the "Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970".

(Pub. L. 91–598, §1(a), Dec. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1636.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "This Act", meaning Pub. L. 91–598, Dec. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1636. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title of 1978 Amendment

Pub. L. 95–283, §1, May 21, 1978, 92 Stat. 249, provided that: "This Act [enacting sections 78fff–1 to 78fff–4 of this title, amending sections 77c, 78c, 78k, and 78ccc to 78lll of this title and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 78k of this title] may be cited as the 'Securities Investor Protection Act Amendments of 1978'."
Exhibit






Exhibit 4.3




AGREEMENT TO FURNISH DEBT INSTRUMENTS
Pursuant to Item 601(b)(4)(iii)(A) of Regulation S-K, Criteo S.A. (the “Company”) has not included as an exhibit to its Annual Report on Form 10-K any instrument relating to long-term debt if the total amount of debt authorized by such instrument does not exceed 10% of the total assets of the Company. The Company agrees to furnish a copy of any such instrument to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.


                        
	
		
	 
	CRITEO S.A.

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Eric Eichmann

	Name:
	Eric Eichmann

	Title:
	Chief Executive Officer

	Date:
	February 29, 2016
#### §§ 2.100-2.102 [Reserved]
| | 
| | 
| | 















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We hereby consent to the inclusion in Aurizon Mines Ltd.s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 of our audit report dated March 18, 2011 relating to the financial statements of the Company as at December 31, 2010 and 2009 and for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2010 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Aurizon Mines Ltd. as at December 31, 2010.







Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, British Columbia

March 18, 2011











PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership, or, as the context requires, the PricewaterhouseCoopers global network or other member firms of the network, each of which is a separate legal entity.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-21147

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARLVIN WALTER SOLOMON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-293-1

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

December 12, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marlvin Walter Solomon (“Solomon”) appeals his conviction

for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2). Solomon makes the following

arguments: (1) that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional,

(2) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he

possessed a firearm in and affecting interstate commerce, and

(3) the indictment was defective because it failed to allege that
No. 01-21147

-2-

his possession of the firearm had a “substantial effect” on

interstate commerce.

Solomon acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

circuit precedent. Nevertheless, Solomon seeks to preserve the

issues for Supreme Court review. This court has repeatedly

emphasized that the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is not

open to question. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513,

518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied 534 U.S. 1150 (2002). Because

the factual basis indicated that the firearm Solomon possessed

was not manufactured in Texas, Solomon’s conviction was supported

by the evidence. See United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242

(5th Cir. 1996). Finally, the indictment in Solomon’s case was

not defective for failing to allege that his possession of the

firearm had a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. See

United States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir. 1997). 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2012174EN.01001301.xml

| 16.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Able UK Ltd

(Case C-225/11) (1)

1

(VAT - Directive 2006/112 - Exemptions - Article 151(1)(c) - Supply of services of dismantling obsolete US Navy ships in the territory of a Member State)

2012/C 174/17

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Applicants:

Defendant: Able UK Ltd

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Article 151(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions relating to certain transactions treated as exports — Dismantling of obsolete US Navy ships carried out on the territory of a Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 151(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services such as that at issue in the main proceedings, made in a Member State party to the North Atlantic Treaty and consisting in dismantling obsolete ships of the Navy of another State party to that treaty, is exempt from VAT under that provision only where

| — | those services are supplied for staff of the armed forces of that other State taking part in the common defence effort or for the civilian staff accompanying them, and |
| --- | --- |

—

those services are supplied for staff of the armed forces of that other State taking part in the common defence effort or for the civilian staff accompanying them, and

| — | those services are supplied for members of the armed forces who are stationed in or visiting the Member State concerned or for the civilian staff accompanying them. |
| --- | --- |

—

those services are supplied for members of the armed forces who are stationed in or visiting the Member State concerned or for the civilian staff accompanying them.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011

1

---
### §77qqq. Special powers of trustee; duties of paying agents

(a) The indenture trustee shall be authorized—

(1) in the case of a default in payment of the principal of any indenture security, when and as the same shall become due and payable, or in the case of a default in payment of the interest on any such security, when and as the same shall become due and payable and the continuance of such default for such period as may be prescribed in such indenture, to recover judgment, in its own name and as trustee of an express trust, against the obligor upon the indenture securities for the whole amount of such principal and interest remaining unpaid; and

(2) to file such proofs of claim and other papers or documents as may be necessary or advisable in order to have the claims of such trustee and of the indenture security holders allowed in any judicial proceedings relative to the obligor upon the indenture securities, its creditors, or its property.

(b) Each paying agent shall hold in trust for the benefit of the indenture security holders or the indenture trustee all sums held by such paying agent for the payment of the principal of or interest on the indenture securities, and shall give to such trustee notice of any default by any obligor upon the indenture securities in the making of any such payment.

(May 27, 1933, ch. 38, title III, §317, as added Aug. 3, 1939, ch. 411, 53 Stat. 1173; amended Pub. L. 101–550, title IV, §416, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2731; Pub. L. 111–203, title IX, §985(c)(2), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1934.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 111–203 substituted "(1) in the" for "(1) , in the".

1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–550, §416(1)–(3), in introductory provisions, substituted "trustee shall be authorized" for "to be qualified shall contain provisions", in par. (1) struck out "authorizing the indenture trustee" after the paragraph designation, and in par. (2) struck out "authorizing such trustee" after the paragraph designation.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–550, §416(4), substituted "Each" for "The indenture to be qualified shall provide that each".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective 1 day after July 21, 2010, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as an Effective Date note under section 5301 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 FRANK DOMBOS,

3 Plaintiff-Appellant,

4 v. No. 33,703 

5 ROBERT STEWART,

6 Defendant-Appellee,

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CIBOLA COUNTY

8 Camille Martinez Olguin, District Judge

9 Frank J. Dombos

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 Pro Se Appellant

12 NM Department of Corrections

13 Kathleen O. Ayala

14 Santa Fe, NM

15 for Appellee

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 FRY, Judge.

18 {1} Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment in Defendant’s favor, as well

19 as the district court’s refusal to grant Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. We

20 issued a notice of proposed disposition proposing to affirm in part and reverse in part,
2

1 and neither party has filed a memorandum opposing that proposed disposition.

2 Therefore, for the reasons stated in the notice, we affirm the district court’s judgment

3 in part and reverse it in part. 

4 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 

6 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge

7 WE CONCUR:

8 

9 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge

10 

11 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

|   | 1. | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Chad C. Braun       |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Chad                C. Braun           |   |
| Chief                Financial Officer |   |
| March                26, 2007          |   |
#### In the Matter of Carrie F., Respondent, v David PP. et al., Respondents, and Michelle G., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Michelle G., Appellant, v Broome County Department of Social Services et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[825 NYS2d 791]

*1109Kane, J.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Pines, J.), entered September 14, 2005, which granted petitioner’s application, in proceeding No. 1 pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to modify a prior dispositional order, and (2) from an order of said court, entered December 13, 2005, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in proceeding No. 2 pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to modify the court’s September 2005 order.

In the underlying Family Ct Act article 10 proceeding, the child was adjudicated neglected by Carrie F. (hereinafter the mother). Family Court’s dispositional order, entered on consent, placed the child with Michelle G. (hereinafter the grandmother) for a period of 12 months. In proceeding No. 1, the mother subsequently sought to modify the dispositional order (see Family Ct Act § 1061), alleging that the grandmother moved to Colorado and left the child with respondent David PE (hereinafter the father). Neither the father nor grandmother appeared in court on that petition. In September 2005, the court modified the dispositional order by placing the child in the care of respondent Broome County Department of Social Services. The grandmother later commenced proceeding No. 2 to modify the September order to provide her with custody. In December 2005, Family Court dismissed that petition without a hearing. The grandmother appeals from both the September and December orders.

Family Court did not err in modifying the dispositional order. The court has discretion in determining whether a hearing is necessary upon a motion to modify an existing dispositional order *(see*Family Ct Act § 1064; *Matter of Davies v Davies,*223 AD2d 884, 886 [1996]). Where the court possesses information sufficient to afford a comprehensive, independent review, a hearing is not required *(see Matter of Davies v Davies, supra*at 886; *Matter of Oliver S. v Chemung County Dept. of Social Servs.,*162 AD2d 820, 821-822 [1990]). Here, the mother’s modification petition, the Department’s home study and statements made on the record showed that the grandmother had either temporarily or permanently moved to another state and left the child with an inappropriate caregiver. She did so without informing the Department, which was still responsible for supervising the family. Based on the information presented, there was good cause to modify the Family Ct Act article 10 order and the court did not abuse its discretion in doing so without a hearing.

Family Court also properly dismissed the grandmother’s peti*1110tion without a hearing. That petition seeking custody was insufficient on its face because it failed to allege good cause for modification of the prior order (see Family Ct Act § 1061; *Matter of Melissa FF.,*285 AD2d 682, 683 [2001]).

Mercure, J.E, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.
### §7312. Construction

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to confer any authority on the National Institute of Standards and Technology to require the adoption of building standards, codes, or practices.

(Pub. L. 107–231, §14, Oct. 1, 2002, 116 Stat. 1477.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 107–231, Oct. 1, 2002, 116 Stat. 1471, known as the National Construction Safety Team Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7301 of this title and Tables.
# C_2012109EN.01000502.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/5

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Auditeur du travail v Yangwei SPRL

(Case C-349/11) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 97/81/EC - Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work - Obligation to publicise and keep employment contracts and work schedules)

2012/C 109/09

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Auditeur du travail

Applicant:

Defendant: Yangwei SPRL

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998, L 14, p. 9) — Permissibility of national legislation requiring an employer to draw up documents recording departures from work schedules as well as to keep and publicise the contracts and work schedules of part-time workers — Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes employers responsible for the obligations of retention and publication of the contracts and work-schedules of part-time workers if it is established that such legislation does not lead to them being treated less favourably than full-time workers in a similar situation or, if such there is such a difference in treatment, it is established that it is justified on objective grounds and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives thus pursued. It is for the referring court to perform the necessary factual and legal investigation, particularly with regard to the applicable national law, in order to determine whether that is so in the case before it.

In the event that the referring court were to conclude that the national legislation at issue is incompatible with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81, Clause 5(1) thereof would have to be interpreted as precluding such legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011

1

---
# C_2011152EN.01001402.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Council of State (Belgium) lodged on 8 March 2011 — The non-profit-making association PRO-BRAINE and Others v The Commune of Braine-le-Château

(Case C-121/11)

2011/C 152/25

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Council of State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: The non-profit-making association PRO-BRAINE and Others

Applicants:

Defendant: The Commune of Braine-le-Château

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the definitive decision on the carrying on of operations at an authorised or already operational landfill site taken on the basis of Article 14(b) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1) constitute a consent as referred to in Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment? (2)

1

2

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

2

---