alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023060EN.01000701.xml

| 17.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/7

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

(2023/C 60/05)

The following information is brought to the attention of Viktor Ivanovych Ratushniak, Vitalii Yuriyovych Zakharchenko and Serhiy Vitalyovych Kurchenko, persons who appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (2) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine.

The Council has received information from the Ukrainian authorities that will be considered within the framework of the annual review of the restrictive measures. The above-mentioned persons are hereby informed that he may submit a request to the Council to obtain the elements the Council holds in its file regarding their designation, before 22 February 2023, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

In this regard, the attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the regular review by the Council of the list of designated persons in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014.

---

(1)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 26.

(2)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 1.

---
Appeal No. 77-61.

#### Brian Burns *et al. v.*Christine A. Sullivan *et al.*

*Manning, West, Santaniello & Pari, V. James Santaniello,*for plaintiffs.

*Nótale L. Urso,*for defendants.

Defendants’ motion to reconsider the previous order of this court is denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION

-    Serologicals Finance Company
     --  Serologicals License Company
     --  Serologicals, Inc.
         * Allegheny Biologicals, Inc.
         * Am Rho Laboratories, Inc.
         * Serologicals Ltd. (formerly known as Bioscot Ltd.)
               --- Bioscot, Ltd.
         * Serologicals Investment Company
               --- Serologicals Management Partnership, LP (1)
         * Serologicals Royalty Company
         * Bio-Lab, Inc.
         * Med-Lab, Inc.
     --  Serologicals Proteins, Inc. (formerly known as Serologicals 
         Diagnostics, Inc.)
     --  Site Acquisition Corp.
         * Therapeutics, Inc.
     --  Seramed, Inc.
         * Allied Plasma Products, Inc.
         * Simi Biological Resources, Inc.
         * Nations Biologics, Inc.
               --- Alameda Plasma Center, Inc.
               --- MBW Enterprises, Inc.
                     ---- American Biologics, Inc.
                     ---- National Biologicals, Inc.
         * Bloomington Plasma, Inc.
         * Seronat Plasma, Inc.
         * Southeastern Biologics, Inc.
         * Plasma Management, Inc.
         * Reno Plasma, Inc.

-    Serologicals (Barbados), Inc. (FSC)

   (1) Serologicals Investment Company is the 99% limited partner in 
       Serologicals Management Partnership. Serologicals, Inc. is the 1% 
       general partner.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-    First tier subsidiary of Serologicals Corporation
     -- Second tier subsidiary
        *  Third tier subsidiary
              ---  Fourth tier subsidiary
                      ----  Fifth tier subsidiary

Unless otherwise indicated, all subsidiaries are wholly owned
#### § 150.25 Suspension of rules.

For good cause shown, the Court acting as a whole or in panel may suspend the requirements or provisions of any of this part in a particular case on petition of a party or on its own motion and may order proceedings in accordance with its direction.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Emilie G. O’Neil, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of PSNH Funding LLC 3 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.              I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 8, 2018, by and between PSNH Funding LLC 3 and Public Service Company of New Hampshire, in all material respects; and

 

5.              All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of New York Mellon, as Indenture Trustee.

 

Date: March 29, 2019

 
|   | **PUBLIC   SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE**, as Servicer |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | ** **                                                 |
|   |                                                       |
|   | By:                                                        | /s/ Emilie G. O’Neil |
|   |                                                       | Emilie G. O’Neil |
|   |                                                       | Assistant Treasurer – Corporate Finance and Cash Management and   senior officer in charge of the servicing function of Public Service Company   of New Hampshire |

 

----
### §513. Federal air marshal program

#### (1) Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that the Federal air marshal program is critical to aviation security.

#### (2) Limitation on statutory construction

Nothing in this chapter, including any amendment made by this chapter, shall be construed as preventing the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security from implementing and training Federal air marshals.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title XIV, §1402(c), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2305.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in par. (2), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 107–296, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2135, known as the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

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

#### Change of Name

Reference to Under Secretary of Transportation for Security deemed to refer to Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, see section 1994 of Pub. L. 115–254, set out as a note under section 114 of Title 49, Transportation.
Exhibit 8.1

The following
table sets forth a list of our subsidiaries. Omitted from the table are those
subsidiaries which are not significant subsidiaries (as defined in rule 1-02(w)
of Regulation S-X of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended).

|                               |                                
|------------------------------ | -------------------------------
|Name of
  Subsidiary           | Jurisdiction
  of Incorporation
|                               |                                
|Elbit Ltd.                     | Israel                         
|                               |                                
|DEP
  Technology Holdings Ltd. | Israel                         
|                               |                                
|Given
  Imaging Ltd.           | Israel                         
|                               |                                
|Galil
  Medical Ltd            | Israel                         
|                               |                                
|3DV Systems
  Ltd.             | Israel                         

---
# f

Date. 7-20-2015

From : Christopher Wayne Baker #1301359 Telford Unit \ 3899 State Hwy.98 New Boston, TX 75570
TO: The Honorable Clerk of The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Dear Honorable Clerk. I need to know what my Case No. was in your Court for my Petition for Discretionary Review(PDR). The original case number out of the 104th Judicial District court of Taylor county was 14512-B. The cause number in the 11th District 

### 'court of Appeals(Eastland Texas) was 11-05-00165' CR. My court appointed appeal lawyer filed a PDR in your court on or about the 

## middle of April 2006. I have placed a self addressed stamped enve 

## lope in this letter for postage so that you can send me the info requested please. Isimplyneed to know the PD number inyour court,and the date your court refused it. THAN&YOO, JCTFULLY REQUESTED, 

### ?/£•/? /J- /jsiM*—-



## RECEIVEDIN 

## COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS JUL242015 

## Abe!Aeosta,Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1365 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1365

 Calling for the termination of United States Secret Service Director 
       Kimberly Cheatle from her position, effective immediately.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2024

Mr. Langworthy (for himself, Mr. Pfluger, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, 
 Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. Van Drew, Ms. Mace, Ms. Malliotakis, Mr. Donalds, 
Mr. Bergman, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Cloud, Mr. Fry, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. 
Gallego, Mrs. Bice, Mr. Buchanan, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Fallon, Mr. Crenshaw, 
  Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Nehls, Mr. Lawler, Mr. Turner, Mr. Molinaro, Mr. 
 Balderson, Mrs. Houchin, Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia, and Mrs. McClain) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Calling for the termination of United States Secret Service Director 
       Kimberly Cheatle from her position, effective immediately.

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives calls for the 
termination of United States Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle 
from her position, effective immediately.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 11




                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<PAGE>


<TABLE>
                                                       Exhibit 11
                                    Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings

                                            Three Months Ended                           Twelve Months Ended
                                                October 31,                                  October 31,

                                --------------------------------------------  -------------------------------------------
                                        1999                   1998                   1999                  1998
                                ---------------------  ---------------------  ---------------------  --------------------
    (in thousands, except per
                share amount)
                                  Basic    Diluted       Basic    Diluted       Basic     Diluted      Basic    Diluted
                                ---------------------  ---------------------  ---------------------  --------------------
<S>                                <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>         <C>       <C>         <C>       <C>
                   Net income        $674       $674        $968       $968       $1,802    $1,802      $9,254    $9,254

      Weighted average shares

                  outstanding       5,951      5,951       6,410      6,410        5,980     5,980       6,498     6,498

      Assumed issuances under

          stock options plans           -         50           -        142            -        81           -       172
                                ---------------------  ---------------------  ---------------------  --------------------
                                    5,951      6,001       6,410      6,552        5,980     6,061       6,498     6,670


    Earnings per common share       $0.11      $0.11       $0.15      $0.15        $0.30     $0.30       $1.42     $1.39
                                =====================  =====================  =====================  ====================
</TABLE>
#### Max Goodman, appellant, v. Jack Kopeyka, appellee.

Gen. No. 29,757.

Action of forcible detainer. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Robert E. Gentzel, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed May 11, 1925.

Morris Schaeffer, for appellant.

Rosenberg, Cohen & Zimmerman, for appellee; Austin L. Wyman, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Johnston

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §567. Termination of committee

A negotiated rulemaking committee shall terminate upon promulgation of the final rule under consideration, unless the committee's charter contains an earlier termination date or the agency, after consulting the committee, or the committee itself specifies an earlier termination date.

(Added Pub. L. 101–648, §3(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4974, §587; renumbered §567, Pub. L. 102–354, §3(a)(2), Aug. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 944.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–354 renumbered section 587 of this title as this section.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7059
MAURICIO MACK GILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY WATERS, Portsmouth Sheriff, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-432-2) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mauricio Mack Gill, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mauricio Mack Gill appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Gill v. Waters , No. CA-03-432-2 (E.D. Va. entered June 20, 2003; filed July 1, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Escalade, Incorporated (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending October 4, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert J. Keller,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Robert
 J. Keller   
|                        
|Robert J.
 Keller       
|Chief
 Executive Officer
|October 23,
 2008       

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4400

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DONALD EMANUEL RYAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(1:04-cr-00114-WDQ)

Submitted: November 20, 2006 Decided: December 11, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David R. Solomon, GLASER & SOLOMON, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, John F.

Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Donald Emanuel Ryan pled guilty, pursuant to a plea

agreement, to one count of conspiracy to import cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963 (2000). The district court sentenced

Ryan to 188 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Ryan argues that the

district court erred in denying his requests for downward departure

based upon the hardship to his family, and upon the disparity of

sentencing compared to his co-defendant. 

The Government asserts that Ryan validly waived the right

to appeal his sentence in the plea agreement. A defendant may

waive the right to appeal if that waiver is knowing and

intelligent. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir.

2005). To determine whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent,

this court examines the background, experience, and conduct of the

defendant. United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146

(4th Cir. 1995). Generally, if the district court fully questions

a defendant regarding the waiver of her right to appeal during the

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and

enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 461 (2005); United States v.

Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). However, an appeal

waiver does not preclude challenges to a sentence on the ground

that it exceeds the statutory maximum or is based on a

constitutionally impermissible factor such as race, appeals from
- 3 -

the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on

ineffective assistance of counsel, or claims concerning a violation

of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in proceedings following

the guilty plea. Johnson, 410 F.3d at 151 (citations omitted).

The question of whether a defendant validly waived her right to

appeal is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.

Blick, 408 F.3d at 168.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Ryan

knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence.

See Blick, 408 F.3d at 169. Moreover, the challenges Ryan raises

on appeal fall within the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we dismiss Ryan’s appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 723.7 Action by the Secretary. ( a ) *General.* The record of proceedings, except in cases finalized by the Board under the authority delegated in § 723.6(e), and those denied by the Board without a hearing, will be forwarded to the Secretary who will direct such action as he or she determines to be appropriate, which may include the return of the record to the Board for further consideration. Those cases returned for further consideration shall be accompanied by a brief statement setting out the reasons for such action along with any specific instructions. If the Secretary's decision is to deny relief, such decision shall be in writing and, unless he or she expressly adopts in whole or in part the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Board, or a minority report, shall include a brief statement of the grounds for denial. See § 723.3(e)(4).
( b ) *Military Whistleblower Protection Act.* The Secretary will ensure that decisions in cases involving the Military Whistleblower Protection Act are issued 180 days after receipt of the case and will, unless the full relief requested is granted, inform applicants of their right to request review of the decision by the Secretary of Defense. Applicants will also be informed: ( 1 ) Of the name and address of the official to whom the request for review must be submitted.
( 2 ) That the request for review must be submitted within 90 days after receipt of the decision by the Secretary of the Navy.
( 3 ) That the request for review must be in writing and include: ( i ) The applicant's name, address and telephone number;
( ii ) A copy of the application to the Board and the final decision of the Secretary of the Navy; and
( iii ) A statement of the specific reasons the applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the Secretary of the Navy.
( 4 ) That the request must be based on the Board record; request for review based on factual allegations or evidence not previously presented to the Board will not be considered under this paragraph but may be the basis for reconsideration by the Board under § 723.9.