alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2020045EN.01000301.xml

| 18.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 45/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 45/3

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2020/214

of 17 February 2020

amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus

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 15 October 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against Belarus. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 15 October 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against Belarus.

| (2) | On the basis of a review of that Decision, the restrictive measures against Belarus should be extended until 28 February 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of a review of that Decision, the restrictive measures against Belarus should be extended until 28 February 2021.

| (3) | Decision 2012/642/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2012/642/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 8 of Decision 2012/642/CFSP is replaced by the following:

‘Article 8

1.   This Decision shall apply until 28 February 2021.

2.   This Decision shall be kept under constant review and 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, 17 February 2020.

For the Council

The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ L 285, 17.10.2012, p. 1).

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 15



December 14, 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 October 31, 1998 and November 1, 1997, as
indicated in our report dated December 11, 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 October 31, 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
#### Hinton v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

*Michael Egnal,*for appellant.

*Abraham L. Freedman,*city solicitor, and *Mattheiv M. Bullock, Jr.,*for zoning board.

December 26, 1953.

Sloane, J.,

In this zoning appeal the record sent up by the board shows a failure to .register the definitive vote to which applicant appellant was entitled. He had applied for a permit for a six-apartment multiple dwelling which was refused *193by the zoning division on the ground that ordinance provisions were not complied with. He then appealed to the board for the variance he needed for the requested use. He had to get the “concurring vote of four members of the board of adjustment ... to effect a variation in such ordinance”: Act of May 6, 1929, P. L. 1551, sec. 8, 53 PS §3829.

The hearing on applicant’s petition came before all six members of the board of adjustment. He did not get the four votes he needed and therefore took his appeal to this court.

The return of the board shows the votes to have been as follows-: John E. Power, Jr. — no; Reuben E. Cohen —not voting; Molly Yard Garrett — not voting; Murray G. Isard — not voting; Frank M. Steinberg — yes, one year temporary; Walter S. Pytko — no.

It is easy to see that with only three voting the applicant could not possibly have gotten four affirmative votes even if all who voted were for him. Moreoever, if the three members who heard the case and did not cast votes favored the application there would be four including the one who did vote “yes — 1 year temporary”. It seems to me therefore it was an insufficient disposition; applicant is entitled to a fuller vote by the board to decide upon his plea for a variance.

Sesnovich v. Board of Appeal, 313 Mass. 393, 47 N. E. 2d 943 (1943), held that where a unanimous decision of the entire membership of the board was required to authorize a variance, all members of the board must participate in the public hearing upon the petition. In that case a variance was granted where all members but one had participated in the public hearing and the absent member also voted affirmatively after examination and study of the record; it was held the procedure was defective and that objectors to the variance had not waived their rights by consenting to the procedure.

*194I find the board here did not make that complete disposition required before the matter is ready for appeal to this court.

I therefore order the record be returned to the zoning board of adjustment for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum.
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.7429-2 Review of jeopardy and termination assessment and jeopardy levy procedures. ( a ) *Request for administrative review.* Any request for the review of a jeopardy or termination assessment or jeopardy levy provided for by section 7429(a)(2) shall be filed with the district director within 30 days after the statement described in § 301.7429-1 is given to the taxpayer. However, if no statement is given within the 5 day period described in § 301.7429-1, any request for review of the jeopardy or termination assessment or jeopardy levy shall be filed within 35 days after the date such assessment or levy is made. Such request shall be in writing, shall state fully the reasons for the request, and shall be supported by such evidence as will enable the district director to make the redetermination described in section 7429(a)(3).
( b ) *Administrative review.* In determining whether the assessment is reasonable and the amount assessed is appropriate, or whether the jeopardy levy is reasonable, the district director shall take into account not only information available at the time the assessment or jeopardy levy is made but also information which subsequently becomes available.
( c ) *Abatement of assessment.* For rules relating to the abatement of assessments made under sections 6851 and 6861 see §§ 301.6861-1(e), 301.6861-1(f) and 1.6851-1(d) of this chapter.
[T.D. 8453, 57 FR 58985, Dec. 14, 1992]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 20, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41474 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VICTOR ACUNA-CARBAJAL, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-276-ALL

-------------------- Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Victor Acuna-Carbajal appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana. Acuna-Carbajal contends that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As Acuna-Carbajal concedes, his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). He raises the issue only toNo. 04-41474 -2- preserve it for Supreme Court review. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 35.16



LOGO

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OF

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

The undersigned, Job Warshaw,
being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the Special Servicer), as special servicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject to any
limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:



| | 1. | A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1, 2017 and ending on December 31, 2017 (or any other shorter period set forth on Schedule I hereto) (the
Reporting Period), and of the Special Servicers performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and
Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|
|

LNR PARTNERS, LLC,a Florida limited liability companyBy

\s\ Job WarshawJob WarshawPresident






1601 Washington Avenue ● Suite 700 ● Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 ● Fax: (305) 695-5601



---

Schedule I

CGCMT 2016-P5

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-P5,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-P5

Citibank,N.A.,

Global Transaction Services

388 Greenwich Street, 14th Floor

New York NY 10013

John Hannon

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

390 Greenwich
Street, 5th Floor

New York NY 10013

Paul Vanderslice

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

388 Greenwich
Street, 19th Floor

New York NY 10013

Richard Simpson

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

388 Greenwich
Street, 17th Floor

New York NY 10013

Ryan M. OConnor

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC

600 Third Avenue, 40th
Floor

Att: {Pool Name}

New York NY 10016

Group
# C_2021070EN.01002201.xml

| 26.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/22

---

Corrigendum to the statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2020

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 107 of 31 March 2020
  )

(2021/C 70/06)

On page 7, chapter 1 0, Title 1 — Total, Grand total:

for:

| ‘Title
  Chapter | Heading | Financial year 2020 | Financial year 2019 | Financial year 2018 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY | | | |
| 1 0 | EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY | 21 779 000 | 20 779 000 | 20 371 000 |
| | Title 1 — Total | 21 779 000 | 20 779 000 | 20 371 000 |
| [...] | [...] | | | |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 21 979 000 | 21 921 536 | 20 763 522 ’ |

‘Title

Chapter

Heading

Financial year 2020

Financial year 2019

Financial year 2018

1

EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY

1 0

EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY

21 779 000

20 779 000

20 371 000

Title 1 — Total

21 779 000

20 779 000

20 371 000

[...]

[...]

GRAND TOTAL

21 979 000

21 921 536

20 763 522 ’

read:

| ‘Title
  Chapter | Heading | Financial year 2020 | Financial year 2019 | Financial year 2018 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY | | | |
| 1 0 | EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY | 21 195 000 | 20 779 000 | 20 371 000 |
| | Title 1 — Total | 21 195 000 | 20 779 000 | 20 371 000 |
| [...] | [...] | | | |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 21 395 000 | 21 921 536 | 20 763 522 ’ |

‘Title

Chapter

Heading

Financial year 2020

Financial year 2019

Financial year 2018

1

EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY

1 0

EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY

21 195 000

20 779 000

20 371 000

Title 1 — Total

21 195 000

20 779 000

20 371 000

[...]

[...]

GRAND TOTAL

21 395 000

21 921 536

20 763 522 ’

---
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1240

To combat crime by enhancing the penalties for certain sexual crimes against

children.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 15, 1995

Mr. MCCOLLUM (for himself, Mrs. VUCANOVICH, Mr. COBLE, Mr. BRYANT of

Tennessee, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. HEINEMAN, Mr. CHABOT, and Mr. BARR)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To combat crime by enhancing the penalties for certain

sexual crimes against children.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sexual Crimes Against

5 Children Prevention Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN CONDUCT IN

7 SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN.

8 The United States Sentencing Commission shall

9 amend the sentencing guidelines to increase the base of-
2

•HR 1240 IH

1 fense level for offenses under section 2251 or 2252 by at

2 least 2 levels.

3 SEC. 3. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR USE OF COMPUTERS

4 IN SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN.

5 The United States Sentencing Commission shall

6 amend the sentencing guidelines with respect to an offense

7 under—

8 (1) section 2251(c)(1)(A); or

9 (2) any of paragraphs (1) through (3) of sec10 tion 2252(a);

11 of title 18, United States Code, to increase the offense

12 level by at least 2 levels if a computer was used to transmit

13 the notice or advertisement to the intended recipient or

14 to transport or ship the visual depiction.

15 SEC. 4. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF

16 CHILDREN WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN

17 CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

18 The United States Sentencing Commission shall

19 amend the sentencing guidelines to increase the base of20 fense level for an offense under section 2423(a) by at least

21 3 levels.

22 SEC. 5. PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR RICO.

23 Section 1961(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code,

24 is amended by striking ‘‘sections 1461–1465 (relating to
3

•HR 1240 IH

1 obscene matter)’’ and inserting ‘‘chapter 71 (relating to

2 obscenity)’’.

3 SEC. 6. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

4 Section 2423(b) of title 18, United States Code, is

5 amended by striking ‘‘2245’’ and inserting ‘‘2246’’.

Æ
39981.

#### BELL et al. v. MUTUAL FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. “A motion for a new trial is a means of seeking to have a retrial or re-examination, in the *445same court, of an issue of fact, or of some part or portion thereof, after decision by a jury, report of a referee, or a decision by the court thereon. It is an application for a retrial of the facts of the case. 2. Thomp. Trials, § 2708; *Castellaw v. Blanchard,*106 Ga. 97 (31 SE 801); 5 Words & Phrases, 4788 et seq.” *Buchanan v. James,*134 Ga. 475 (1) (68 SE 72).

Decided March 4, 1963.

*F¡. II. Stanford,*for plaintiffs in error.

*W. M. Mathews, Jr.,*contra.

2. “The grant of a nonsuit terminates the case without a final passing upon the issues of fact by a jury, referee, or judge. It is a ruling by the judge, that the plaintiff, under the evidence presented by him, has not made out such a ease as to entitle him to have the jury pass upon the issues of fact. Under the practice in this State, it does not preclude the plaintiff from bringing another action, and seeking to make out his case by the introduction of evidence on the trial thereof.” Ibid., (2).

3. “It follows from the distinction which will appear, from the two preceding headnotes that where the presiding judge grants a nonsuit, and thus terminates the case before a verdict or decision upon the issues of fact, a motion for a new trial is not the proper mode of testing the correctness of such ruling. See *Hudson v. Georgia Pacific Ry. Co.,*85 Ga. 203 (11 SE 605); *Central Railroad Co. v. Folds,*86 Ga. 42 (12 SE 216); *Swain v. Macon Fire Ins. Co.,*102 Ga. 96, 103 (29 SE 147); *Southern Railway Co. v. James,*114 Ga. 198 (39 SE 849); *City of Atlanta v. Miller,*125 Ga. 495 (54 SE 538).” Ibid., (3).

4. Inasmuch as the grant of a nonsuit is not reviewable by a motion for new trial there was no error in refusing the plaintiff’s motion for new trial made after the grant of the defendants’ motion for nonsuit. See also *Farmers Union Warehouse &c. Co. v. Stewart,*138 Ga. 733 (75 SE 1131).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 104 Received in Senate (RDS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 104

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 29 (legislative day, September 25), 1995

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
            Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, 
September 29, 1995, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Friday, October 
6, 1995, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns 
on any day beginning with Friday, September 29, 1995, through Friday, 
October 6, 1995, pursuant to
a motion made by the Majority Leader or his designee in accordance with 
this resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Tuesday, 
October 10, 1995, or until such time on that day as may be specified by 
the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, 
or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 29, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.

                              By Linda Nave,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
#### § 20.2204-3 Special rules for estates of decedents dying after December 31, 1976; special lien under section 6324A.

For purposes of §§ 20.2204-1(b) and 20.2204-2(b), in the case of a decedent dying after December 31, 1976, if the executor elects a special lien in favor of the United States under section 6324A, relating to special lien for estate taxes deferred under sections 6166 or 6166A (as in effect prior to its repeal by the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981), such lien shall be treated as the furnishing of a bond with respect to the amount for which the time for payment has been extended under section 6166. If an election has been made under section 6324A, the executor may not thereafter substitute a bond pursuant to section 2204 in lieu of that lien. If a bond has been supplied under section 2204, however,the executor may, by filing a proper notice of election and agreement, substitute a lien under section 6324A for any part or all of such bond. See §§ 20.6324A-1 and 301.6324A-1 for rules relating to a special lien under section 6324A.

[T.D. 7941, 49 FR 4468, Feb. 7, 1984]
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 61 ) ll-K-(B)-4 9 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:50AM Sheet 61 of 325P. 2

II-K-(B)-4 9

ASSUMPTION S USE DI

N IFCA M T O MODE L INDUSTRIAL BOILE R FUE L CHOICE . Lette r fro

m E . Medine , EE

A t o R . Short , EPA:SASD . Augus t 4 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-4 9
Exhibit 10.1


CHINA GREEN AGRICULTURE, INC.




March 28, 2011




Dear Mr. Zhang:




This letter shall confirm our discussions pursuant to which you have indicated your willingness to serve on the Board of Directors of China Green Agriculture, Inc. effective March 28, 2011 on the terms set forth below for a term of one year unless you are re-elected at the next annual meeting of stockholders or re-appointed by the majority of the board, in which case the term is to be renewed beyond one year or until your earlier resignation or the removal pursuant to the Company’s by-laws.




Our company compensates our non-employee directors for all services they perform as a director of our company, including attendance at Board of Directors meetings and service as members of committees of the Board of Directors to which they are appointed. The details of such compensation are:




1 an annual compensation of $24,000;


2 Time-based grant of 8,000 shares subject to terms specified in the stock grant agreement as enclosed hereto;


3 One-time grant of 8,000 shares to make up Mr. Zhang’s past three years extraordinary service and contribution to the Company;


4 $500 per full board of directors meeting attended; and


5 $250 per full Committee meeting attended in person





You would also be reimbursed for all of your out-of-pocket expenses in traveling to and attending meetings of the Board of Directors and committees on which you would serve.




You may indicate your agreement with these terms by signing and dating this letter agreement and returning it to the undersigned. By signing this letter agreement, you reconfirm to the company that you have no contractual commitments or other legal obligations that would prohibit you from performing your duties for the company.









Very truly yours,



CHINA GREEN AGRICULTURE, INC.Signature PageBy:
/s/ Tao LiTao LiPresident and Chief Executive Officer










I have read and accept and agree to the above terms of Employment








/s/ Yizhao Zhang


Signature of Yizhao Zhang