alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2020362EN.01002901.xml

| 30.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 362/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 362/29

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2020/1586

of 29 October 2020

amending Decision 2010/573/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova

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 of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 27 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/573/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 27 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/573/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.

| (2) | On the basis of a review of Decision 2010/573/CFSP, the restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova should be extended until 31 October 2021. The Council will carry out a review of the situation with regard to the restrictive measures after six months. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of a review of Decision 2010/573/CFSP, the restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova should be extended until 31 October 2021. The Council will carry out a review of the situation with regard to the restrictive measures after six months.

| (3) | Decision 2010/573/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2010/573/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 4(2) of Decision 2010/573/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:

| ‘2. | This Decision shall apply until 31 October 2021. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’. |
| --- | --- |

‘2.

This Decision shall apply until 31 October 2021. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.

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, 29 October 2020.

For the Council

The President

M. ROTH

---

(1)  Council Decision 2010/573/CFSP of 27 September 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova (OJ L 253, 28.9.2010, p. 54).

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 30 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                     

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 30

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
permitting the President to grant a pardon to an individual only after 
                  such individual has been convicted.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

    Mr. Jacobs introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
permitting the President to grant a pardon to an individual only after 
                  such individual has been convicted.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The President shall only have the power to grant a reprieve or a 
pardon for an offense against the United States to an individual who 
has been convicted of such an offense.''.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 306.24 Collection of fees on definitive securities.

A fee shall be charged for each registered security, as defined in § 306.115 (a), issued as a result of a transfer, exchange, reissue, withdrawal from book-entry, or the granting of relief on account of loss, theft, destruction, mutilation, or defacement. The applicable fee, and the basis for its determination, will be published by notice in the Federal Register.

[60 FR 4377, Jan. 23, 1995, as amended at 64 FR 38126, July 15, 1999]
# L_2020016EN.01004001.xml

| 21.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 16/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 16/40

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2243 of 17 December 2019 establishing a template for the contract summary to be used by providers of publicly available electronic communications services pursuant to Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(Official Journal of the European Union L 336 of 30 December 2019)

On page 278, in the Annex, the layout and typeface used in ‘Part A – Template’ is replaced as follows:

‘PART A - Template

| [Service name] | [Provider/provider logo]
  [Contact] |
| --- | --- |

[Service name]

[Provider/provider logo]

[Contact]

Contract summary

| • | This contract summary provides the main elements of this service offer as required by EU law
   (1). |
| --- | --- |

•

This contract summary provides the main elements of this service offer as required by EU law
   (1).

| • | It helps to make a comparison between service offers. |
| --- | --- |

•

It helps to make a comparison between service offers.

| • | Complete information about the service is provided in other documents. |
| --- | --- |

•

Complete information about the service is provided in other documents.

Service
  s and equipment

[...]

Speeds of the internet service and remedies

[...]

Price

[...]

Duration, renewal and termination

[...]

Features for end-users with disabilities

[...]

Other relevant information

[...]

---

(1)  Article 102(3) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 36).’

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 3, 2015

t0223

Order 

Clerk

March 3, 2015

149545

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 149545

COA: 313692

Saginaw CC: 12-037135-FH

PATRICK JERMAINE CALBERT,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 20, 2014 

judgment 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marvin T. Thomas, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[803 NYS2d 492]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered December 9, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the first degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant preserved for our review his *1157contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, we conclude that defendant’s contention is without merit (see *generally People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 19-20 [1983]). We reject the further contention of defendant that County Court erred in refusing to suppress his statement to the police. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not err in crediting the testimony of the detective at the suppression hearing over that of defendant (see *People v Barfield,*21 AD3d 1396 [2005]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Pine, JJ.
Home2021 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Adler, Michael M. – Kingdom of Belgium – October 2021

# 									Adler, Michael M. – Kingdom of Belgium – October 2021							

Certificate of Competency

October 25, 2021

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT: Ambassadorial Nomination: Certificate ofDemonstrated Competence — Foreign ServiceAct, Section 304(a)(4)

POST: Kingdom of Belgium

CANDIDATE: Michael M. Adler

Michael M. Adler is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Adler Group, Inc., one of South Florida’s largest real estate companies. Adler has played a significant role in the growth and development of South Florida as a major center for international trade, where he developed one of the region’s largest corporate parks. Adler Group, Inc., formed in 1978, offers services in real estate development, construction, brokerage and leasing and property management. Adler has significant mixed use multifamily development projects and commercial real estate holdings throughout the Southeastern United States. Adler is a civic and community leader and has held key leadership roles in many charities and non-profit organizations. Adler served as Chairman of Mount Sinai Medical Center where he currently sits on the Board of Trustees, President of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation where he was able to serve as a representative at the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and as former Vice Chairman of Florida International University’s Board of Trustees. His extensive business and management experience, coupled with his leadership skills, makes him a well-qualified candidate to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium.

Adler is a long-standing resident of Miami and has a bachelor’s degree in business administration from the University of Miami. He is the recipient of the David Ben-Gurion Award from Israel Bonds and the Stanley C. Meyers Leadership Award from the Greater Miami Jewish Federation.

Back to Top
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANCEL PRATT, JR., Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL C. WEISS, D.O., MICHAEL C. WEISS, D.O., P.A., LOUIS H. ISAACSON, D.O., LOUIS H. ISAACSON, D.O., P.A., STERLING HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC., STERLING MIAMI, INC., LAUDERDALE ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, MICHAEL C. WEISS, D.O., P.A., and FMC HOSPITAL LTD., a Flo rida Limited Partnership d/b/a FLORIDA MEDICAL CENTER, FMC MEDICAL, INC., f/k/a FMC CENTER INC.,

d/b/a FLORIDA MEDICAL CENTER
,

Appellee s

.

No. 4D 10

- 4398

[ November 12, 2015 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward Count

y ; Jeffrey E. Streitfeld , Judge; L.T. Case No. 98

- 11569(19)

.

Linda A. Alley of Sheldon J. Schlesinger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale and Philip M. Burlington and Andrew A. Harris of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

A. Candace Marcus and James C. Sawran of McIntosh, Sawran & Cartaya, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

M AY
, J.

This case comes to us upon remand from the Supreme Court of Florida.

Pratt v. Weiss , 161 So. 3d 1268 (Fla. 2015). We previously affirmed a trial court order, in which the trial court found an offer of judgment complied with the requirements of section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2004). The supreme court has now quashed our decision and held that the offer failed

to com ply with section 768.79 and rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil

Procedure . For the reasons expressed in the supreme court’s decision, we

now reverse the trial court order and remand the case for further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded

.2

G ROSS and D AMOORGIAN
, JJ., concur.

* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
October 9, 2012

VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

Federal Aviation Administration

c/o U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

800 Independence Avenue

Washington, D.C. 20591-0004

Re: Petition for Renewal of Exemption Number 10205

Regulatory Docket Number FAA-2011-0003

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter serves as a petition to renew Exemption Number 10205, Docket Number FAA2011-003 issued to the Texas Aviation Hall of Fame, home of the Lone Star Flight 

Museum, which exempts the operation of our Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (N900RW), 

North American B-25 Mitchell (N333RW) and North American TF-51 Mustang (N4151D) 

aircraft from 14 C.F.R. § 91.315 while conducting instructional flights.

The Texas Aviation Hall of Fame has held this exemption for conducting instructional 

flights in the above Limited Category Aircraft since 2011 and has operated these aircraft at 

an equivalent level of safety without incident or compromise to aviation safety. 

There has not been any significant change to the reasons relative to the public interest and 

safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. We have successfully 

operated under the conditions and limitations contained in the original exemption and 

believe they achieve an increased level of safety for the public. Therefore, we respectfully 

request that the Exemption No. 10205 be renewed in its current form and that its 

effectiveness be extended until January 31, 2015.

If there are any questions or need for additional information, please contact me at 409-740-

7722 or via email at larry@lonestarflight.org. 

Regards,

Larry Gregory

President

Texas Aviation Hall of Fame

Texas Aviation Hall of Fame

P.O. Box 3099  Galveston, Texas 77552  Tel: (409)740-7722  Fax: (409)740-7612  Email: flight@lonestarflight.org
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**Certification of Principal ExecutiveOfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (the”Company”)for the quarter ended September  30, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Fred P.Lampropoulos, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: November 5,  2009 | /s/ Fred P.  Lampropoulos                                             |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Fred P. Lampropoulos                                                  |
|                         | President and Chief  Executive Officer  (principal executive officer) |

 

This certificationaccompanies the foregoing Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of thiscertification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 FOR DBS INDUSTRIES, INC. AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,944,917
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,489,693
<PP&E>                                          68,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,646,110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          554,890
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,697
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,085,523
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,646,110
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,036,023
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (75,649)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,960,374)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,960,374)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,960,374)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.17)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 15

June 9, 1998

The Caldor Corporation
Norwalk, Connecticut

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of The Caldor Corporation (Debtor-In-Possession) and subsidiaries
("Caldor") for the periods ended May 2, 1998 and May 3, 1997, as indicated in
our report dated June 9, 1998 which includes explanatory paragraphs relating to
the Company's reorganization proceedings and its ability to continue as a going
concern; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on the
information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 2, 1998, is incorporated
by reference in a) Registration Statement No. 33-44996 of Caldor on Form S-8, b)
Registration Statement No. 33-41321 of Caldor on Form S-8, c) Registration
Statement No. 33-51510 of Caldor on Form S-8, d) Registration Statement No.
33-67438 of Caldor on Form S-8 and e) Registration Statement No. 33-84526 of
Caldor on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Section 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New York, New York
§ 58.6091-1 Place for filing tax returns under chapter 37 of the Internal Revenue Code. ( a ) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, stock repurchase excise tax returns required by § 58.6011-1(a) must be filed in accordance with the instructions applicable to such returns.
( b ) *Hand-carried returns.* Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, stock repurchase excise tax returns that are filed by hand carrying must be filed with any person assigned the responsibility to receive hand-carried returns in the local Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office that serves the principal place of business, principal office, or agency of the taxpayer.
( c ) *Exceptional cases.* Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the Commissioner may permit the filing of any stock repurchase excise tax return in any local IRS office.
( d ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to stock repurchase excise tax returns required to be filed after June 28, 2024, and during taxable years ending after June 28, 2024.
40032.

#### RILEY v. THE STATE.

Decided April 16, 1963.

*Edward B. Everett,*for plaintiff in error.

*William T. Boyd, Solicitor General, Frank S. French, Eugene L. Tiller,*contra.

Frankum, Judge.

1. A writ of error coram nobis does not lie to correct defects in a proceeding which were known to the party or his counsel at the time of the trial or which were apparent on the face of the record and could have been taken advantage of by a motion to dismiss the proceeding or by demurrer. *South v. State,*72 Ga. App. 79 (33 SE2d 23). Neither is such writ available where the party seeking it has an adequate statutory remedy. *Randall v. Whitman,*88 Ga. App. 803 (1) (78 SE2d 78).

2. A motion to set aside the verdict and judgment is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case. *Gravitt v. State,*165 Ga. 779 (142 SE 100); *Claughton v. State,*179 Ga. 157 (175 SE 470); *Waits v. State,*204 Ga. 295 (49 SE2d 492).

3. In this case the defendant was convicted on counts 1 and 2 of a four-count indictment charging four separate similar offenses. By a motion which he denominated a “Writ of Error Coram Nobis” and “Motion to Vacate Judgment,” filed after the term of court at which he was convicted and sentenced, the defendant sought to have the court set aside his conviction on count 2 under which he was sentenced to serve a term in the penitentiary consecutively to the term imposed under count 1. If the conviction under count 2 was null and void as contended by the defendant in his motion, he has a complete and adequate remedy to secure a release by a writ of habeas corpus whenever the prison authorities seek to confine him pursuant to the sentence imposed under that count. *McDonald v. State,*126 Ga. 536 (55 SE 235); *Gravitt v. State,*165 Ga. 779, supra.

4. The judge of the superior court did not err in denying the motion.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*