alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014182EN.01001601.xml

| 14.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/16

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 12 June 2014

appointing an alternate member of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Lithuania

2014/C 182/04

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Council Decision of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

1

Having regard to the list of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decisions of 22 April 2013 (2) and of 2 December 2013 (3), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period from 22 April 2013 until 28 February 2016. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decisions of 22 April 2013 (2) and of 2 December 2013 (3), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period from 22 April 2013 until 28 February 2016.

2

3

| (2) | The government of Lithuania has submitted a further nomination for a post to be filled, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The government of Lithuania has submitted a further nomination for a post to be filled,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following person is appointed as an alternate member of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 28 February 2016:

III.   EMPLOYERS’ REPRESENTATIVES

| Country | Member | Alternate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Lithuania | | Ms Nadežda FILIPOVA |

Country

Member

Alternate

Lithuania

Ms Nadežda FILIPOVA

Article 2

The Council will appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 12 June 2014.

For the Council

The President

Y. MANIATIS

---

(1)  OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Decision of 22 April 2013 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (OJ C 120, 26.4.2013, p. 7).

2

(3)  Council Decision of 2 December 2013 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Croatia, Hungary, Portugal and the United Kingdom (OJ C 358, 7.12.2013, p. 3).

3

---
28.103-4 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.228-16,

Performance and Payment Bonds-Other than Construction, in solicitations and contracts that contain

a requirement for both payment and performance bonds. The contracting officer shall determine the

amount of each bond for insertion in the clause. The amount shall be adequate to protect the

interest of the Government. The contracting officer shall also set a period of time (normally 10 days)

for return of executed bonds. AlternateI shall be used when only performance bonds are required.

Parent topic: 28.103 Performance and payment bonds for other than construction contracts.
# L_2014178EN.01000101.xml

| 18.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 178/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 178/1

---

Unilateral Statement by the Commission (1)

The provisions of this Agreement shall not prevent the European Commission from implementing Commission notice Nr 2013/C-205/05.

Unilateral Statement by Israel (1)

Unilateral Statement by Israel (1

Israel notes that references to Commission Notice No 2013/C-205/05 should not be construed as prejudicing Israel's principled position against it.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 177, 17.6.2014, p. 1.

1

---
#### CASSIDY, Respondent, v. SAUER et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

September 26, 1906.)

Action by John C. Cassidy, as, etc., against Charles Sauer and others.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Questions to be certified for review to be settled by and before Mr. Justice Williams on two days’ notice.
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case Nos. 5:98cr06/LAC/GRJ

DONALD ALLEN

_____________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated September 11, 2014 (doc. 249). Defendant has been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of the

objections (doc. 250).

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections, I have determined

that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. The motion for a certificate of appealability (doc. 244) is DENIED.

3. The motion for leave to appeal as a pauper (doc. 245) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26 day of September, 2014. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:98-cr-00006-LC-GRJ Document 251 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 1
#### § 3560.600 OMB control number.

The information collection requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control number 0575-0189. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from 15 minutes to 18 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. A person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
# L_2014054EN.01001801.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 54/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 54/18

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUFOR RCA/1/2014

of 19 February 2014

on the appointment of the EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation in the Central African Republic (EUFOR RCA)

(2014/103/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2014/73/CFSP of 10 February 2014 on a European Union military operation in the Central African Republic (EUFOR RCA) (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 5 of Decision 2014/73/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Force Commander for EUFOR RCA. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 5 of Decision 2014/73/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Force Commander for EUFOR RCA.

| (2) | The EU Operation Commander has recommended the appointment of Brigadier General Thierry LION as the EU Force Commander for EUFOR RCA. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The EU Operation Commander has recommended the appointment of Brigadier General Thierry LION as the EU Force Commander for EUFOR RCA.

| (3) | The EU Military Committee supports that recommendation. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The EU Military Committee supports that recommendation.

| (4) | In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Brigadier General Thierry LION is hereby appointed EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation in the Central African Republic (EUFOR RCA).

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 19 February 2014.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

W. STEVENS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 40, 11.2.2014, p. 59.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         308,426
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               308,426
<PP&E>                                       5,832,327
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,140,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,955
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,041,798
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,140,753
<SALES>                                        232,845
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               237,151
<CGS>                                           77,014
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,014
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               130,161
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,976
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,976
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,976
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LAVAROS DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5935-MCR-HTC

SGT. DANIELS, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE

A telephonic status conference will be held Tuesday, June 20, 2023, at 11:30 

a.m. (CST) for the purpose of setting pretrial deadlines and setting a trial date. The 

conference may be accessed by utilizing the following:

Teleconference Number – (888) 684-8852 

Teleconference Access Code – 7934281# 

Security Code – 062023#

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2023.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon

HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

NOTE: If you or any party, witness, or attorney in this matter have a disability 

that requires special accommodation, such as a hearing impairment that 

requires a sign-language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires 

ramp access, please contact the clerk’s office at least one (1) week prior to the 

hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.
# 32.004 Contract performance in foreign countries.

The enforceability of contract provisions for security of Government financing in a foreign jurisdiction is dependent upon local law and procedure. Prior to providing contract financing where foreign jurisdictions *may* become involved, the *contracting officer**shall* ensure the Government’s security is enforceable. This *may* require the provision of additional or different security than that normally provided for in the standard *contract clauses*.

**Parent topic:**Part 32 - Contract Financing
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




In
connection with the Annual Report of Halcyon Jets Holdings, Inc. (the
‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K for the period ending January 31, 2009as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I,
Jan E. Chason, Chief Financial 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.




Dated:
      April 23, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/
      Jan E. ChasonJan
      E. Chason
                    Chief
      Financial Officer




This
certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form with the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
# United 

# States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Decided June 24, 2009

Before

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 07

‐ 2761

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v.

ANSELMO ZEPEDA,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Indiana.

No. 2:05 CR 41

‐ 04

Rudy Lozano,

Judge

.



### O R D E R

On May 11, 2009, we ordered a limited remand asking the district court to determine

whether the transcript of Anselmo Zepeda’s sentencing hearing accurately reflects the term

of imprisonment pronounced from the bench. The district court listened to the recording of

the hearing and discovered that the transcript—which reflects that the court pronounced a

term of 150 months—is in error: the term pronounced from the bench was 210 months, the

same term reflected in the written judgment. The transcript has been corrected and made

part of the record on appeal. Because there is no discrepancy between the orally

pronounced sentence and the written judgment, and Zepeda has presented no other

argument on appeal, the judgment of the district court dated July 13, 2007 is AFFIRMED. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1
#### Rowe Street Associates, Inc., Appellant, v. Town of Oyster Bay, Respondent.

In this action for a judgment declaring the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Oyster Bay unconstitutional insofar as it affects plaintiff’s parcel of real estate located in the *“*D ” Residence District of the Town, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 12, 1969 and made after a nonjury trial, declaring the ordinance to be constitutional, legal and operable as applied to said property. Judgment affirmed, with costs. On April 23, 1969 plaintiff purchased a parcel of real estate located in the “ D ” Residence District of the Town of Oyster Bay. The parcel has a plottage of 10,000 square feet and is improved by a one-family residence building. Plaintiff wishes to divide the plottage area into two 5.000 square foot plots and erect an additional one-family house on the new 5.000 foot plot to be thus created. By such conversion of its property plaintiff can substantially increase its value. Defendant’s Building Zone Ordinance, by an amendment in effect since January 1953, restricts such conversion; it requires a minimum area plot of 7,000 square feet for the erection of such house. Plaintiff contends that in the light of the determination in *Matter of Fulling*v. *Palumbo*(21 N Y 2d 30) the ordinance as thus amended is confiscatory, arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional as applied to its property and that the ordinance should be nullified insofar as its property is concerned so that it can proceed with its proposed division and erection of a new additional building. In our opinion, *Fulling (supra)*does not support plaintiff’s contention. In *Fulling,*the zoning complained of was enacted in 1953, five years after the petitioner therein seeking a variance had acquired the property. *988enacted. In *Fulling,*all of the surrounding residences in the neighborhood of the subject property were built on plots which were substandard to the plottage required by the 1953 zoning. Here, only a small percentage of the houses in the neighborhood of plaintiff’s property are on substandard lots. In *Fulling,*no evidence was adduced before the Zoning Board of Appeals to indicate that the variance sought would undermine the neighborhood. Here, evidence was adduced ’before Special Term to that effect. The Trial Justice with the consent of the parties visited the neighborhood of the subject property to obtain a visual comprehension of the effect thereon if the ordinance were to be nullified and declared unconstitutional as to that property. He found, quoting from *Fullmg (supra,*p. 34), that defendant had “a legitimate interest in maintaining and preserving the character of a particular area”; and that the character of the area herein involved would be undermined by the declaration sought. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur. [63 Misc 2d 46.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000758256
<NAME>                        The Saint James Company
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          279
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       999,057
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             279
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
46.709 Warranties of commercial products

and commercial services.

The contracting officer should take advantage of commercial warranties, including extended

warranties, where appropriate and in the Government’s best interests, offered by the contractor for

the repair and replacement of commercial products and commercial services (see part 12).

Parent topic: Subpart 46.7 - Warranties
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
STEVEN R . B RIGGS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35893 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-02117-M C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l J. M c Shane , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 5, 2016 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , D. W . NELSON, a nd LEAVY, C irc uit Judge s. Ste ve n R . B riggs a

ppe a ls pro sethe distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the de c ision of theC om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , finding him not disa ble d within the m e aning of theSoc ia l Se c urity Ac t, e xc e pt for a

c lose d pe riod of tim e from



# FIL ED FEB 09 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Se pte m

be r 7, 2006 through Ja

nua ry 18, 2008. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de n ovo, Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012), a

nd we a ffirm . B riggs c ha lle nge s the a c c ura c y of the a dm i nistra

tive re c ord. M ore spe c ific a lly , B riggs c o nte n ds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in not inve s tiga ting his a lle gation tha

t the tra n sc ript of his he aring be fore the a dm inistra tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) wa s a lte re d to de le t e the ALJ’ s ruling re ga rding B riggs’ s pe riod of disa bility . B oth the he aring tra n sc ript a nd the e ntire a dm inistra

tive re c o rd we re c e rtifie d a s a c c urat e and c om p le te . Se e28 U.SC . § 753(b) (sta ting tha t a c e rtifie d transc ript is “ de e m e d prim a fa c ie a c orre c t sta

te m e nt of thete stim ony ” ). B riggs’ s ba re a sse rtion tha

t the he aring tra

nsc ript wa s a lte re d is not suffic ie nt to underc ut the p re sum

ptive a c c ura c y

of tha t re c ord. Se eAbatino v
. Unite d State s , 750 F.2d 1442, 1445 (9th C ir. 1985) (noting tha t a ppe lla nts ha ve the burde n of proof re ga rding thea c c ura c y

of the a p pe lla te re c ord supporting the ir a p pe a l). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the ALJ’ s de te rm ination tha

t B riggs e xpe rie nc e d a

c ha nge in his re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity , a n inc re a se in his a

bility to do work, a

nd the re fore a

m e dic a l im

prove m e nt a s of Ja

n ua ry 19, 2008. Se e Molina 674 F.3d a

t 1110-11. AFFIRM E D. 2