alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2014008EN.01003101.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 8/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 8/31

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1368/2013 of 13 December 2013 on Union support for the nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria and Slovakia, and repealing Regulations (Euratom) No 549/2007 and (Euratom) No 647/2010

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 346 of 20 December 2013
  )

On page 2, recital 7, second sentence:

for:

‘From this, the amount of EUR 500 million in 2011 prices, which is approximately EUR 553 million in current prices, ...’,

read:

‘From this, the amount of EUR 860 million in 2011 prices, which is approximately EUR 969 million in current prices, ...’;

on page 3, the first subparagraph of Article 3(1):

for:

‘The financial envelope for the implementation of the Kozloduy and Bohunice programmes for the period from 2014 to 2020 shall be EUR 323 318 000 in current prices. That amount shall be distributed between the Kozloduy and Bohunice programmes as follows:

| (a) | EUR 208 503 000 for the Kozloduy programme for the period from 2014 to 2020; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

EUR 208 503 000 for the Kozloduy programme for the period from 2014 to 2020;

| (b) | EUR 114 815 000 for the Bohunice programme for the period from 2014 to 2020.’, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

EUR 114 815 000 for the Bohunice programme for the period from 2014 to 2020.’,

read:

‘The financial envelope for the implementation of the Kozloduy and Bohunice programmes for the period from 2014 to 2020 shall be EUR 518 442 000 in current prices. That amount shall be distributed between the Kozloduy and Bohunice programmes as follows:

| (a) | EUR 293 032 000 for the Kozloduy programme for the period from 2014 to 2020; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

EUR 293 032 000 for the Kozloduy programme for the period from 2014 to 2020;

| (b) | EUR 225 410 000 for the Bohunice programme for the period from 2014 to 2020.’. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

EUR 225 410 000 for the Bohunice programme for the period from 2014 to 2020.’.

---
#### Helen M. Fredericks, Respondent, v Michael J. Courtney et al., Defendants, and Robert J. McCombs, Appellant.

Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff sold property to defendant McCombs who gave a mortgage to plaintiff. McCombs subsequently conveyed the property to Courtney who assumed the mortgage. Upon Courtney’s failure to make payments on the mortgage, plaintiff served a summons and complaint for foreclosure upon him and upon McCombs. The *ad damnum*clause contained a demand for a deficiency judgment against Courtney but not against McCombs. Courtney and McCombs defaulted and plaintiff submitted to the court a final judgment of foreclosure and sale which provided for a deficiency judgment against McCombs as "original debtor on the bond and mortgage and sole party now personally liable in view of Courtney’s bankruptcy.” The matter was referred to a Referee to conduct a judicial sale. The property sold for $1,000 leaving a deficiency of $22,324.90. When plaintiff served a notice of motion for deficiency judgment in that amount, McCombs cross-moved for an order nullifying all proceedings against him subsequent to the judgment of foreclosure and sale, or vacating and setting aside the order of reference and permitting him to interpose a defense in response to the original complaint. Special Term vacated the judgment of foreclosure as to McCombs insofar as it granted a deficiency judgment and granted plaintiff the right to serve an amended complaint upon McCombs containing a demand for a deficiency judgment. On appeal, McCombs contends that the entire judgment of foreclosure and sale should be vacated and that plaintiff should not be allowed to amend her complaint. A default judgment may be set aside completely or in part and the court may impose such conditions on the parties "as may be just” (CPLR 5015, subd [a]; *Leale v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 69 AD2d 832; Schutzer v Berger,*40 AD2d 725). Special Term properly vacated that part of the judgment which granted a deficiency judgment against McCombs inasmuch as such relief was not demanded in the complaint (CPLR 3215, subd [b]). In addition, allowing plaintiff to amend her complaint to allege a demand for a deficiency judgment against McCombs was a proper exercise of discretion since the original complaint gave McCombs adequate notice of the underlying claim against him as surety and McCombs will be able to assert in his answer any defenses he may have to the claim for the deficiency. The sale should also be set aside as McCombs’ status as a party defendant is different from what it was when the property was sold, and he should be given an opportunity to participate in a sale of the property. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court—deficiency judgment.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.
#### George Sachs et al., Respondents, v Fumex Sanitation, Inc., Appellant.

In an action to recover damages based upon defendant’s negligent inspection of premises, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered December 15, 1978, which is in favor of plaintiffs and against it, after a nonjury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed. Plaintiff, contract vendees of certain improved real property, retained defendant for a fee of "twenty some odd dollars” to conduct a prepurchase inspection to determine whether the subject premises were infested with termites. The inspection report indicated the presence of termites and minor visible structural damage, warned plaintiffs that when "termite evidence is found in any area, it is an indication termites are active somewhere in the soil around, beneath or in some other part of the structure” and advised plaintiffs that a "carpenter or general contractor should be consulted to assess the reported damage and/or other damage which may exist and which was not visible to our inspector.” After reading the report and having the subject premises chemically treated for termite infestation, plaintiffs took title to the property. Shortly thereaf*596ter, they discovered massive termite damage to the structure, necessitating costly repairs. Trial Term found that plaintiffs had purchased the subject premises in justifiable reliance on defendant’s report and that defendant was negligent in not making a proper and thorough examination. Damages, based on plaintiffs’ expert’s estimate of the cost of repairing the premises, were set at $14,803. Trial Term erred in holding defendant liable for negligence. Competent evidence of industry practice adduced at trial established that defendant’s duty to plaintiffs was only to report whether the subject premises were infested with termites and, in case of severe structural damage, to note such damage and recommend consultation with someone competent to determine the extent of such damage (see *Bonhagen*v *Hooper,*195 So 2d 447, writ refused 250 La 634). Defendant gave plaintiffs the information necessary to arrange for further inspection of the subject premises by persons qualified in building construction and repair; defendant cannot be held liable for plaintiffs’ failure to do so before taking title. Trial Term also erred in inferring that if defendant had called the man who had done the inspection, who was no longer in defendant’s employ and whose absence was explained, his testimony would have been adverse to defendant. A former employee might no longer be under the control of a party (see *Oswald v Heaney,*70 AD2d 653). Trial Term further erred in relying on plaintiffs’ expert’s assessment of damages, which was based on published estimates of construction costs not in court at the time the witness testified. An expert’s opinion may not be based on materials not on the record, and his description of the contents of such materials, without explaining their absence, violated the best evidence rule (see *Sirico v Cotto,*67 Mise 2d 636). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.620 Requirements to obtain information from Portfolio Concerns. All the information required by this section is subject to the requirements of § 4290.600 and must be in English. ( a ) *Information for initial Financing decision.* Before extending any Financing, you must require the Enterprise to submit such financial statements, plans of operation (including intended use of financing proceeds), cash flow analyses, projections, and such economic development information about the Enterprise, as are necessary to support your investment decision. The information submitted must be consistent with the size and type of the Enterprise and the amount of the proposed Financing.
( b ) *Updated financial and economic development information.* ( 1 ) The terms of each Financing must require the Portfolio Concern to provide, at least annually, sufficient financial and economic development information to enable you to perform the following required procedures: ( i ) Evaluate the financial condition of the Portfolio Concern for the purpose of valuing your investment;
( ii ) Determine the continued eligibility of the Portfolio Concern;
( iii ) Verify the use of Financing proceeds;
( iv ) Evaluate the economic development impact of the Financing; and
( v ) In the case of any Portfolio Concern that is not a Rural Business Concern, the number and percentage of its employees residing in Rural Areas.
( 2 ) The president, chief executive officer, treasurer, chief financial officer, general partner, or proprietor of the Portfolio Concern must certify the information submitted to you.
( 3 ) For financial and valuation purposes, you may accept a complete copy of the Federal income tax return filed by the Portfolio Concern (or its proprietor) in lieu of financial statements, but only if appropriate for the size and type of the Enterprise involved.
( 4 ) The requirements in this paragraph (b) do not apply when you acquire securities from an underwriter in a public offering (*see* § 4290.825). In that case, you must keep copies of all reports furnished by the Portfolio Concern to the holders of its securities.
( c ) *Information required for examination purposes.* You must obtain any information requested by the Agency's examiners for the purpose of verifying the certifications made by a Portfolio Concern under § 4290.610. In this regard, your Financing documents must contain provisions requiring the Portfolio Concern to give you and/or the Agency's examiners access to its books and records for such purpose.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

DONNIE ROMONE TWIGGS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0315 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201801789

The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Jr., Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman

By Matthew J. Smith

Counsel for Respondent

Donnie Romone Twiggs, Tucson

Petitioner

FILED 1-18-2022
STATE v. TWIGGS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann, Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Paul 

J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Donnie Romone Twiggs seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This 

is petitioner’s first petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) 

(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marcos Mosquedo, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered June 14, 1978, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed *(United States v Gutterman,*147 F2d 540; see Ann., 157 ALR 1225; *People v Smith,*31 AD2d 847). Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Case 3:20-cv-05484-TKW-MJF Document 35 Filed 07/30/21 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:20-cv-05484-TKW-MJF Document 35 Filed 07/30/21 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:20-cv-05484-TKW-MJF Document 35 Filed 07/30/21 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:20-cv-05484-TKW-MJF Document 35 Filed 07/30/21 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:20-cv-05484-TKW-MJF Document 35 Filed 07/30/21 Page 5 of 5
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:96cr75/MMP

DEWAYNE DUGAN

 /

O R D E R

This matter is before the court for consideration of reduction of defendant’s

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The government has filed an opposition to

sentence reduction, raising an issue of public safety. (Doc. 203). Upon consideration, the

court finds it appropriate to appoint counsel and permit defendant an opportunity to argue

his entitlement to a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court has

determined that defendant is qualified for appointment of counsel pursuant to the

provisions of the Criminal Justice Act. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1

1. The Federal Public Defender, 111 North Adams Street, Suite 100,

Tallahassee, Florida 32301, telephone number (850) 521-3851, is appointed to represent

this defendant and serve as counsel of record for the purposes of resentencing in the

above-styled cause. The defendant is presently in custody. If a Criminal Justice Act (CJA)

panel attorney is selected by the Federal Public Defender as defendant’s attorney, this

order authorizes payment of the CJA attorney for work on behalf of defendant.

2. Followingappearance by appointed counsel, the court will allow forty-five (45)

days within which to file a motion on behalf of defendant. If no motion is filed within the

By initial Order dated October 22, 1996, defendant was determined qualified for appointment of

1

counsel. Defendant has remained in custody since that date and the court sees to no basis or reason to alter

his CJA qualification status.
Page 2 of 2

prescribed time period, the court will enter an order denying sentence reduction pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

DONE and ORDERED 8th day of November, 2011.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 4:96cr75/MMP
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:94-cr-01036-MP All Defendants

JAMES R YOUNG,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 165, Mr. Young’s motion for a certificate of

appealability regarding the Court’s order at Doc. 164. For the reasons stated in that order, the

Court finds that Petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right and the issues are not adequate enough to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 

Accordingly, no certificate of appealability is appropriate in this case, and the motion at Doc.

165 is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
§ 460.4 Calculating prevented planting supplemental disaster payments. ( a ) For insured crops covered under a crop insurance policy with a revenue protection plan of insurance that does not have the harvest price exclusion elected, the payment under this subpart for each insured crop will be calculated by summing the qualifying prevented planting payments for that insured crop and multiplying the total by the prevent plant revenue factor.
( b ) For all other insured crops, the payment under this subpart for each insured crop will be calculated by summing the qualifying prevented planting payments for that insured crop and multiplying the total by the prevent plant base factor.
( c ) If a qualifying prevented planting payment is reduced for any reason, such as the participant planting a second crop, the payment under this subpart will be based on the amount of the qualifying prevented planting payment after any such reduction.
#### § 4284.1107 Statute and regulation references.

All references to statutes and regulations are to include any and all successor statutes and regulations.
# L_2021147EN.01000301.xml

| 30.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 147/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 147/3

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/707

of 29 April 2021

implementing Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 of 10 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic (1), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 10 March 2014, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 224/2014. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 10 March 2014, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 224/2014.

| (2) | On 5 April 2021, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 2127 (2013) approved the removal of one entity from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 5 April 2021, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 2127 (2013) approved the removal of one entity from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.

| (3) | Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 29 April 2021.

For the Council

The President

A. P. ZACARIAS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 70, 11.3.2014, p. 1.

1

---

ANNEX

In the list set out in Part B (Entities) of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 224/2014, the entry for the following entity is deleted:

| 1. | Bureau d’achat de diamant en Centrafrique/Kardiam (alias: a) Badica/Krdiam b) Kardiam). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Bureau d’achat de diamant en Centrafrique/Kardiam (alias: a) Badica/Krdiam b) Kardiam).

---
# 4.1104 Disaster Response Registry.

*Contracting officers**shall* consult the *Disaster Response Registry* via https://www.sam.gov, Search Records, Advanced Search, *Disaster Response Registry* Search when *contracting* for debris removal, distribution of *supplies*, reconstruction, and other disaster or *emergency* relief activities inside the *United States* and *outlying areas*. (See 26.205).

**Parent topic:**Subpart 4.11 - System for Award Management
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of EntreMetrix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, George LeFevre, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated:   November 19, 2007By:  George LeFevreIts:  Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EntreMetrix Corporation and will be retained by EntreMetrix Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement dated April 3, 2009



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT to Loan and Security Agreement (this
“Amendment”) is entered as of April 3, 2009 by and between Silicon Valley Bank (“Bank”) and Entropic Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”) whose address is 6290 Sequence Drive, San Diego,
California 92121. 
 A. Bank and Borrower have entered into that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated as of April 11, 2007
(as the same may from time to time be amended, modified, supplemented or restated, the “Loan Agreement”; capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to them in the Loan Agreement). 
 B. Borrower has requested that Bank amend the Loan Agreement, and Bank has agreed to the same, subject to the terms and conditions as set forth
herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Modified Definition. The defined term “Revolving Line Maturity Date” as set forth in Section 13.1 of the Loan Agreement
is hereby amended to be “April 24, 2009.” 
 2. Limitation of Amendments. The amendment set forth herein is effective for
the purpose set forth herein and shall be limited precisely as written and shall not be deemed to (a) be a consent to any amendment, waiver or modification of any other term or condition of any Loan Document or (b) otherwise prejudice any
right or remedy which Bank may now have or may have in the future under or in connection with any Loan Document. 
 3.
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and all of such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered
as of the date first written above. 
  

									
	BANK	 		 	BORROWER
			
	Silicon Valley Bank	 		 	Entropic Communications, Inc.
					
	By:	 	/s/ Derek R. Brunelle	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Kurt Noyes
	Name:	 	Derek R. Brunelle	 		 	Name:	 	Kurt Noyes
	Title:	 	Relationship Manager	 		 	Title:	 	VP Finance