alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# LI2020080EN.01000101.xml

| 17.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | LI 80/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

LI 80/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2020/408

of 17 March 2020

amending Decision 2013/798/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

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

Whereas:

| (1) | On 23 December 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/798/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 23 December 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/798/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic.

| (2) | On 31 January 2020, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2507 (2020), which extends the exemptions to the arms embargo. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 31 January 2020, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2507 (2020), which extends the exemptions to the arms embargo.

| (3) | Decision 2013/798/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2013/798/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Point (g) of Article 2(1) of Decision 2013/798/CFSP is replaced by the following:

| ‘(g) | the sale, supply, transfer or export of weapons with a calibre of 14,5 mm or less and ammunition and components specially designed for such weapons, and of unarmed ground military vehicles and ground military vehicles mounted with weapons with a calibre of 14,5 mm or less, to the CAR security forces, including state civilian law enforcement institutions, where such weapons, ammunition, components and vehicles are intended solely for support of, or use in, the CAR process of SSR, as notified in advance to the Committee;’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(g)

the sale, supply, transfer or export of weapons with a calibre of 14,5 mm or less and ammunition and components specially designed for such weapons, and of unarmed ground military vehicles and ground military vehicles mounted with weapons with a calibre of 14,5 mm or less, to the CAR security forces, including state civilian law enforcement institutions, where such weapons, ammunition, components and vehicles are intended solely for support of, or use in, the CAR process of SSR, as notified in advance to the Committee;’.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 17 March 2020.

For the Council

The President

A. METELKO-ZGOMBIĆ

---

(1)  Council Decision 2013/798/CFSP of 23 December 2013 concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic (OJ L 352, 24.12.2013, p. 51).

1

---
§ 48.4101-2 Information reporting. ( a ) *In general.* Each information report under section 4101(d) must be— ( 1 ) Made in the form required by the Commissioner;
( 2 ) Made for a period of one calendar month; and
( 3 ) Filed by the last day of the first month following the month for which the report is made, except that a report relating to any month during 2000 must be filed by February 28, 2001.
( b ) *Effective date.* This section is applicable after March 30, 2000.
[T.D. 8879, 65 FR 17160, Mar. 31, 2000]
#### § 29.311 Credit only for service performed on or before June 30, 1997.

Only service performed on or before June 30, 1997, is credited toward Federal Benefit Payments.
39833.

#### MOORE v. J. C. PENNEY COMPANY et al.

Eberhardt, Judge.

Plaintiff brought suit for personal injuries against J. C. Penney Company, Seaboard Air Line Railroad and one Goode. The injury occurred when Goode lifted the metal door of an unloading chute on the sidewalk in front of the Penney store. The metal door struck plaintiff when he walked into it as it was being lifted, causing specified injuries. Goode delivered merchandise for Seaboard.

The court directed a verdict for Penney and Seaboard and the jury found against Goode. Plaintiff sought a new trial on the general grounds only as to Penney and Seaboard. The motion was overruled and plaintiff excepts.

1. Plaintiff sought to base Penney’s liability on the mere maintenance of the unloading chute and on the presence of a box of merchandise on a portion of the chute door which he alleges partially concealed it. (Violation of a Columbus city ordinance relating to obstructing sidewalks was also alleged but no proof of the ordinance was offered.) Quite obviously the single fact that the chute was located on the sidewalk was not negligence nor was there anything about its construction, as alleged, or proved, which would suggest negligence. Nor is there any negligence in merely placing the box on the chute door, and, further, the box admittedly had been there an indeterminate time. We think it can be said as a matter of law that these factors were not the proximate cause of the injuries since the evidence shows quite clearly that Goode’s negligence in lifting the chute door was the efficient cause.

2. Seaboard is said to be liable because Goode was its agent. Neither the contract between Goode and Seaboard nor the facts offered show such agency but are consistent with the independent contractor status of Goode, which was Seaboard’s defense. The facts are well within those presented in *Jocie Motor Lines, Inc. v. Burns Brick Co.,*98 Ga. App. 404 (105 SE2d 780). See also *Wallace v. Price,*55 Ga. App. 783 (190 SE 273). The rule in employer-independent contractor *255situations is one of no liability on the part of the employer *Code*§ 105-501, and the same contract and facts mentioned above "fail to show any of the rule’s recognized exceptions as set out in *Code*§ 105-502.

Decided January 24, 1963.

*W. Stanford Willis,*for plaintiff in error.

*Kelly, Champion ■& Henson, S. E. Kelly, Jr., Foley, Chappell, Young & Hollis,*contra.

Thus the trial court properly directed verdicts for both Penney and Seaboard, and there was no error in denying the motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bussell. J., concur.*
39903, 39904.

#### ELLIS v. KITE (two cases).

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. “No suitor may prosecute two actions in the courts at the same time, for the same cause, and against the same party, and in such a case the defendant may require the plaintiff to elect which he will prosecute if commenced simultaneously; and the pendency of the former shall be a good defense to the latter, if commenced at different times.” *Code*§ 3-601.

2. “. . . [F]rom a single wrong but one cause of action can arise. So long as a plaintiff pleads but one wrong, he does not set up more than one cause of action.” *City of Columbus v. Anglin,*120 Ga. 785, 791 (48 SE 318); *Hamlin v. Johns,*41 Ga. App. 91 (2) (151 SE 815). “A single wrong will not *238be made plural by alleging that it is made up of a number of constituent parts.” *Anglin*case, supra, p. 792. “If there is substantial identity of wrong (which necessarily includes identity of the right violated), there is substantial identity of cause of action.” *Anglin*case supra, p. 793; *Milton v. Milton,*195 Ga. 130, 133 (23 SE2d 411); *Cheatham v. Palmer,*191 Ga. 617 (13 SE2d 674); *Jenkins v. Bridges,*93 Ga. App. 241 (91 SE2d 317).

Decided January 21, 1963.

*O’Kelley & Hopkins, William C. O’Kelley,*for plaintiff’s in error.

*Troutman, Sams, Schroder & Lockerman, William H. Schroder, T. M. Smith, Jr., Robert L. Pennington,*contra.

3. “Amendments are allowed to cure defects. . . So long as the facts added by the amendment, however different they may be from those alleged in the original petition, show substantially the same wrong in respect to the same transaction, the amendment is not objectionable as adding a new and distinct cause of action.” *City of Columbus v. Anglin,*120 Ga. 785, 793, supra; *Spielberg v. McEntire,*105 Ga. App. 545, 547 (4) (125 SE2d 134).

4. In the instant case, the petitions alleging negligence of the defendant in leaving gauze within an incision of one of the plaintiffs following an operation and failing to locate and remove same in a later exploratory operation set up no cause of action different from pending actions in which it was alleged that the gauze was left in the incision following the second, rather than the first, operation. Under the rules of amendment, the plaintiffs could have amended their petitions by setting forth their causes of action in one or more counts.

The court did not err in sustaining the pleas in abatement and dismissing the actions.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.*
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134691 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134691 COA: 275925 Wayne CC: 05-011596 ROOSEVELT DEAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 25, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
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





The
undersigned hereby certifies, in her capacity as Chief
Financial officer of China Green Agriculture, Inc. (the “Company”), for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of her knowledge:





(1) The Company’s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009
(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.





Dated:
November 12, 2009





/s/ Ying YangYing
      YangChief
      Financial Officer(principal
      financial officer and accounting
officer)





This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original 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.
Amendment No. 4 to Distribution and Supply Agreement



 Exhibit 10.6 
 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO 
 DISTRIBUTION AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 4 to Distribution and Supply Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made as of November 30, 2011, by and
among ViroPharma Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Manufacturer”), and Prasco, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as “Distributor”). 

Manufacturer and Distributor are parties to a Distribution and Supply Agreement dated as of November 30, 2007, as amended (the
“Supply Agreement”) and wish to amend the Supply Agreement on the terms of this Agreement. 
 Manufacturer and
Distributor agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Termination for Delayed Launch. The parties hereby amend Sections 10.2(a) and 10.3(a) of the Supply Agreement to delete the words “December 31, 2011” and
substitute in lieu thereof the words “December 31, 2012”. 

  

	 	2.	Subject to the above amendment, the Supply Agreement shall continue on its terms. All references to “this Agreement” in the Supply Agreement shall mean the
Supply Agreement as modified hereby and from time to time hereafter. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. This Amendment has been executed in
and will be governed as to validity, interpretation and effect by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, without regard to principles of conflict of laws. 

 Manufacturer and Distributor have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above. 

 

			
	VIROPHARMA INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Daniel B. Soland



 
			
	Name:	 	Daniel B. Soland
	Title:	 	Vice President and COO


 
			
	
	PRASCO, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher H. Arington



 
			
	Name:	 	Christopher H. Arington
	Title:	 	President
§ 44.0-2 General definitions and use of terms. As used in the regulations in this part, unless otherwise expressly indicated: ( a ) The terms defined in the provisions of law contained in the regulations in this part shall have the meanings so assigned to them.
( b ) The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 means the Act approved August 16, 1954 (68A Stat.), entitled “An Act To revise the internal revenue laws of the United States”, as amended.
( c ) District director means district director of internal revenue.
( d ) The cross references in the regulations in this part to other portions of the regulations, when the word “see” is used, are made only for convenience and shall be given no legal effect.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOMLINSON BLACK NORTH IDAHO , Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. GERALDINE KIRK-HUGHES, anindividual doing business as KirkHughes and Associates, doing business as Kirk-Hughes, LLC, doing business as Kirk-Hughes Development, LLC , Defendant - Appellant, and KELLY POLATIS, an individual; DOES 1-10; DELANO D. PETERSON , Defendants. No. 08-35900 D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00118-RHW
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge, Presiding 

# FILED
NOV 13 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALSpage 2

** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Submitted November 5, 2009 ** Portland, Oregon
Before: KOZINSKI , Chief Judge, FISHER and PAEZ , Circuit Judges. In Idaho, an express agreement bars recovery for unjust enrichment only if it is enforceable and covers the same subject matter. Vanderford Co., Inc. v. Knudson , 165 P.3d 261, 272 (Idaho 2007). The jury reasonably could have found that the agreement between the parties in this case did not apply to the transaction that was the subject of dispute. Therefore, the district court did not err by refusing to grant Kirk-Hughes judgment as a matter of law. Nor did the existence of an express agreement bar an award of damages. “An award for unjust enrichment may be proper even though an agreement exists.” Bates v. Seldin , 203 P.3d 702, 706 (Idaho 2009). The district court also did not err by submitting the issue of unjust enrichment to a jury. A court may, “with the parties’ consent, try any issue by a jury.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(c)(2). Ki rk-Hughes consented to trial by jury, and the district court did not abuse its discreti on in rejecting her last-minute change of heart. Cf. Whitev. McGinnis , 903 F.2d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc).page 3 The award of attorney’s fees to Tomlin son was proper. The sale of property for the purpose of development was a “co mmercial transaction,” Idaho Code § 12- 120(3), and the Idaho Court of Appeals has held that fees are appropriate in cases almost exactly like this one, see Ericksonv. Flynn , 64 P.3d 959, 966–67 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 35.13



|     |  |                                                                                                          
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084, 8th Fl 401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2016, by and among CCRE COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES, L.P., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, AEGON USA REALTY ADVISORS, LLC, as Potomac Mills Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, CFCRE 2016-C6 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify
that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from November 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such
period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of
February 2017.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
EXHIBIT 99.2

                           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 Quarterly Report of Blackhawk Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Todd J.
James, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my 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/ Todd J. James
-----------------
Todd J. James
Executive Vice President and CFO
May 12, 2003

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
§ 48.6420-3 Exempt sales; other payments or refunds available. ( a ) *Exempt sales.* Credits or payments are allowable only for gasoline that was sold by the producer or importer in a transaction that was subject to tax under section 4081. No credit or payment shall be allowed or made under § 48.6420-1 with respect to gasoline which was exempt from the tax imposed by section 4081. For example, a State or local government may not file a claim with respect to any gasoline which it purchased tax free from the producer, even though the State or local government used the gasoline on a farm for farming purposes. Similarly, payment may not be made with respect to gasoline purchased by a State tax free for its exclusive use, as provided in section 4221, which is used on a State prison farm for farming purposes.
( b ) *Other payments or refunds available.* Any amount which, without regard to the second sentence of section 6420(d) and this paragraph (b), would be allowable as a credit or payable to any person under § 48.6420-1 with respect to any gasoline is reduced by any other amount which is allowable as a credit or payable under section 6420, or is refundable under any other provision of the Code, to any person with respect to the same gasoline. Thus, a person who is the ultimate purchaser of gasoline may not file a claim for credit or payment with respect to that gasoline if another person is entitled to claim a payment, credit, or refund with respect to the same gasoline. For example, a State or local government may not file a claim for payment if it has executed, or intends to execute, a written consent to enable the producer to claim a credit or refund for the tax that was paid. See, for example, §§ 48.6416(a)-3(b)(2), 48.6416(b)(2)-2(d), and 48.6416(b)(2)-3(b)(1).
[T.D. 8043, 50 FR 32036, Aug. 8, 1985]
#### § 1025.500 General.

Insurance companies are subject to the special information sharing procedures to deter money laundering and terrorist activity requirements set forth and cross referenced in this subpart. Insurance companies should also refer to subpart E of part 1010 of this chapter for special information sharing procedures to deter money laundering and terrorist activity contained in that subpart which apply to insurance companies.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

      The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of First Keystone Financial, Inc.
(the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

                               /s/ Rose M. DiMarco
                               -------------------------------------
                               Name: Rose M. DiMarco
                               Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date:  August 14, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to First Keystone Financial, Inc. and will
be retained by First Keystone Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.