alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 40/2012

| | ISSN 1977-1002
  doi:10.3000/19771002.C_2012.040.pol |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 40 |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Tom 5511 lutego 2012 |

ISSN 1977-1002

doi:10.3000/19771002.C_2012.040.pol

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 40

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Tom 5511 lutego 2012

---

| Powiadomienie nr | Spis treśći | Strona |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Ogłoszenia |
| | POSTĘPOWANIA ADMINISTRACYJNE |
| | Parlament Europejski |
| 2012/C 040/01 | Decyzja | 1 |

Powiadomienie nr

Spis treśći

Strona

V   Ogłoszenia

POSTĘPOWANIA ADMINISTRACYJNE

Parlament Europejski

2012/C 040/01

Decyzja

1

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

V Ogłoszenia

POSTĘPOWANIA ADMINISTRACYJNE

Parlament Europejski

| 11.2.2012 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | C 40/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

C 40/1

---

DECYZJA

2012/C 40/01

SEKRETARZ GENERALNY PARLAMENTU EUROPEJSKIEGO,

uwzględniając regulamin pracowniczy urzędników Unii Europejskiej i warunki zatrudnienia innych pracowników Unii Europejskiej, ustalone rozporządzeniem Rady (EWG, Euratom, EWWiS) nr 259/68 i zmienione ostatnio rozporządzeniem Rady (WE, Euratom) nr 723/2004, w szczególności art. 30 regulaminu,

uwzględniając decyzję Prezydium w sprawie wyznaczenia organu powołującego, z ostatnimi zmianami wprowadzonymi w dniu 26 października 2004 r.,

uwzględniając ogłoszenia o konkursach oraz o naborze na stanowiska:

PE/96/A, PE/97/A, A/94, A/95, A/96, AD/1/08, AD/3/08, AD/4/08, PE/99/S, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/109/S, B/174, B/175, B/176, C/348, AST/1/2005, AST/1/2006, AST/5/2008, PE/69/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S,

uwzględniając opinię Wspólnego Komitetu wydaną na jego posiedzeniu w dniu 26 października 2011 r.,

STANOWI, CO NASTĘPUJE:

Artykuł

Okres ważności list rezerwowych dotyczących konkursów oraz dotyczących naboru oznaczonych numerami:

PE/96/A, PE/97/A, A/94, A/95, A/96, AD/1/08, AD/3/08, AD/4/08, PE/99/S, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/109/S, B/174, B/175, B/176, C/348, AST/1/2005, AST/1/2006, AST/5/2008, PE/69/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S

został przedłużony do dnia 31 grudnia 2012 r.

Sporządzono w Luksemburgu dnia 18 grudnia 2011 r.

Klaus WELLE

Sekretarz Generalny

---
§ 585.701 Penalties and Findings of Violation. ( a ) The penalties available under section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) (IEEPA), as adjusted annually pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, as amended, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note) or, in the case of criminal violations, as adjusted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571, are applicable to violations of the provisions of this part.
( b ) OFAC has the authority, pursuant to IEEPA, to issue Pre-Penalty Notices, Penalty Notices, and Findings of Violation; impose monetary penalties; engage in settlement discussions and enter into settlements; refer matters to the United States Department of Justice for administrative collection; and, in appropriate circumstances, refer matters to appropriate law enforcement agencies for criminal investigation and/or prosecution. For more information, see appendix A to part 501 of this chapter, which provides a general framework for the enforcement of all economic sanctions programs administered by OFAC, including enforcement-related definitions, types of responses to apparent violations, general factors affecting administrative actions, civil penalties for failure to comply with a requirement to furnish information or keep records, and other general civil penalties information.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7793

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

GREGORY ANTONIO MCKOY, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:10-cr-00077-D-1) 

Submitted: August 20, 2021 Decided: August 30, 2021

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief Appellate Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. G. Norman Acker, III, Acting United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Gregory Antonio McKoy appeals from the district court’s order denying his 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) motion for reduction of sentence under § 404(b) of the First Step 

Act of 2018 (FSA 2018), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. We have reviewed 

the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 

motion. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 495 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting that 

decision whether to grant sentence reduction under FSA 2018 “is entrusted to the district 

court’s discretion”). 

The district court recognized its discretion to reduce McKoy’s sentence, 

recalculated his Sentencing Guidelines range, and considered that new range and his 

reduced statutory range. The court also considered McKoy’s arguments, the nature of his 

offense conduct and his characteristics—including his criminal history, performance on 

supervision, and his post-sentencing conduct—and the needs for his sentence to promote 

respect for the law and to incapacitate him and determined that his 204-month prison 

sentence remained appropriate. We reject as without merit McKoy’s appellate arguments 

that the district court erred in relying in part on his criminal history and failed to support 

its denial decision with a sufficient justification. See United States v. Collington, 995 F.3d 

347, 355, 360 (4th Cir. 2021); United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667, 674-75 (4th Cir. 

2020). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. United States v. McKoy, No. 

7:10-cr-00077-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 2, 2020). 
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Anutra Corporation (formerly
Still Sound Acquisition Corporation) (the "Company"),
hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2017 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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.


                             /s/ James Cassidy
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: March 13, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from Angeles
Partners XI 1999  Fourth  Quarter  10-KSB and is  qualified  in its  entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                 0000702986
<NAME>                       ANGELES PARTNERS XI
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     2,118
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                785
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                    30,614
<DEPRECIATION>                           (20,142)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            13,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                   29,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                               (17,285)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              13,618
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           8,157
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           7,646
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         2,836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (3)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                               1,704
<EPS-BASIC>                                42.57 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
ex10_3.htm








EXHIBIT 10.3




 



	



 

	
Insmed Incorporated


Princeton Corporate Plaza


9 Deer Park Drive, Suite C


Monmouth Junction, NJ 08852-1919


732-997-4600


www.insmed.com







 




September 10, 2012


 



Via Hand Delivery


 



Mr. Donald Hayden, Jr.








 


Dear Don:


 


This letter confirms our mutual agreement regarding the effects of the change in your position with Insmed Incorporated (the “Company”) from Executive Chairman to Chairman of the Board of Directors (the “Board”).  In connection with that change and effective as of the date hereof, you hereby agree and acknowledge as follows:


 


1)           You hereby cease to be an officer and an employee of the Company;


 


2)           That certain Employment Agreement between you and the Company dated May 14, 2012 (the “Employment Agreement”) is hereby terminated.  The change in your position, the cessation of your employment and the termination of the Employment Agreement are by mutual consent and, accordingly, no severance benefits are due to you.  The Company’s only remaining obligations to you under the Employment Agreement or in respect of your service as an employee are those expressly described below;


 


3)           Promptly following the date hereof, the Company will pay you any Accrued Obligations (as that term is defined in the Employment Agreement);


 


4)           You will not participate in the Company’s 2012 annual cash bonus program, although the Board will consider the award to you of a discretionary bonus in respect to your service as the Executive Chairman of the Company;


 




  





  











  






 


5)           Your rights under Section 26 (Indemnification) in respect of your service as an employee and an officer of the Company will survive the termination of the Employment Agreement; and


 


6)           Following the date hereof, you will be compensated for your service as a member (and as Chairman) of the Board in accordance with the Company’s policies and practices for the compensation of non-employee directors, as in effect from time to time.


 


To confirm the foregoing, please execute this letter in the space below and return the original to me.


 



	  	
Sincerely,


	  	  
	  	
Andrea Holtzman Drucker


	  	
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary


	  	 
	
Agreed and Acknowledged on this

	  
	
____ day of September, 2012:

	  
	  	  
	 	
 

	  
	
Donald Hayden, Jr.

	  





 


 


2
#### Leonard DUNCAN v. Ella BRENNAN et al.

No. 11344.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

July 3, 1980.

92 So. 52; and *Muller v. Landry,*La.App., 170 So.2d 922.

*1056Steven M. Koenig, Heisler, Wysocki & Delaup, New Orleans, for plaintiff.

Geoffrey H. Longenecker, Wegmann & Longenecker, New Orleans, for Ella Brennan and Adelaide L. Brennan.

Thomas M. Nosewicz, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, for Travelers Ins. Co.

Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and SCHOTT, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

A petition alleging that through defendant’s negligence petitioner was injured while working for defendant states *some*cause of action, although not *both*a cause of action for tort damages and a cause of action for workers’ compensation. The judgment maintaining the employers’ exception of *no*cause of action is therefore reversed.

The judgment maintaining the alleged compensation insurer’s exception of no cause of action to defendants’ third-party petition is affirmed. The third-party petition alleged insurance against “any and all workers’ compensation *liability,”*but there can be none here, *Blache v. Maryland Cas. Co.,*La.App. 4 Cir. 1973, 283 So.2d 319, because plaintiff is a domestic employee. And, while it is true that insurance policies often oblige the insurer to provide a defense, whether the claim is well founded or not, the third-party petition here does not allege any contractual provision that, for example, the insurer will defend “any and all” suits for workers’ compensation brought against defendants, in respect to either their business operations or their home. The petition therefore does not state a cause of action even for the cost of defense, and defendants do not suggest any desire to amend their third-party petition to allege such a contractual undertaking.

Reversed as to main demand; affirmed as to third party demand.
§ 551.207 Prohibited importation of charcoal from Somalia. ( a ) The importation into the United States, directly or indirectly, of charcoal from Somalia is prohibited.
( b ) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section applies except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this part, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date.
# L_2020434EN.01006601.xml

| 23.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 434/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 434/66

---

DECISION No 19-2020 OF THE COURT OF AUDITORS

of 14 December 2020

regarding the amendment of Article 19 of its Rules of Procedure

THE COURT OF AUDITORS,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the fifth subparagraph of Article 287(4) thereof,

Having regard to the approval of the Council given on 23 November 2020,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors (Court) do not provide for the possibility for the Court to adopt its decisions remotely, namely, by means of video or telephone conference, in exceptional circumstances which constitute force majeure. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors (Court) do not provide for the possibility for the Court to adopt its decisions remotely, namely, by means of video or telephone conference, in exceptional circumstances which constitute force majeure.

| (2) | In order to enable the Court to adopt its decisions remotely in exceptional circumstances which constitute force majeure, and to ensure the continuity of decision-making by the Court in such circumstances, it is necessary to amend its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In order to enable the Court to adopt its decisions remotely in exceptional circumstances which constitute force majeure, and to ensure the continuity of decision-making by the Court in such circumstances, it is necessary to amend its Rules of Procedure,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors is hereby replaced by the following:

‘Article 19

Decision-making procedure

1.   The Court shall adopt its decisions in formal session, save where it applies the written procedure laid down in Article 25(5).

2.   In duly justified and exceptional circumstances which constitute force majeure, in particular, major public health crises, natural disasters or acts of terrorism, determined by the President, the Court may adopt its decisions in formal session, by means of a remote meeting, namely by video or telephone conference, in which Members may participate either at the Court or at another location. The President shall call and chair such meetings and be responsible for their proper conduct. The written procedure laid down in Article 25(5) shall apply mutatis mutandis.

3.   Paragraph 2 shall apply to meetings of the Chambers and of the Committees. The Dean or Chairperson of the respective Chamber or Committee shall call and chair such meetings and be responsible for their proper conduct.

4.   Decisions provided for in Articles 4(4), 7(2) and 13(1), which are taken by secret ballot, may be adopted by the Court in a remote meeting under paragraph 2 of this Article, provided that the secrecy of the vote is ensured.’.

Article 2

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

Done at Luxembourg, 14 December 2020.

For the Court of Auditors

Klaus-Heiner LEHNE

President

---
§ 583.403 Termination and acquisition of an interest in blocked property. ( a ) Whenever a transaction licensed or authorized by or pursuant to this part results in the transfer of property (including any property interest) away from a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 583.201, such property shall no longer be deemed to be property blocked pursuant to § 583.201, unless there exists in the property another interest that is blocked pursuant to § 583.201, the transfer of which has not been effected pursuant to license or other authorization.
( b ) Unless otherwise specifically provided in a license or authorization issued pursuant to this part, if property (including any property interest) is transferred or attempted to be transferred to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 583.201, such property shall be deemed to be property in which such person has an interest and therefore blocked.
40659.

#### SOLOMON v. ROBERT SPECTOR LUMBER COMPANY.

Felton, Chief Judge.

*Code Ann.*§ 67-2001 (2) provides that the true owner of improved real estate can prevent a material-man’s lien from attaching thereto by producing the “sworn statement of the contractor, or other person, at whose instance the work was done, or material was furnished, or such services furnished or rendered, *that the agreed price or reasonable value thereof has been paid.”*(Emphasis supplied).

The affidavit of the contractor produced by the defendant-owner, Solomon, although showing that the contractor had received the full contract price and that the amount of the plaintiff’s lien was within the contract price, also showed only that $6,250 of the contract price was actually used by him in the payment for supplies, material and labor on the contract, without stating that the balance of the contract price, some $24,000, was similarly used. Furthermore, the affiant specifically swore that the materials furnished by the plaintiff company—along with a list of other bills for labor, material and services used on the contract, aggregating more than the $6,250—-had not been paid for. The contractor testified by deposition that out of a total of $32,050 paid directly to him by the owner, $6,420.62 was drawn for his personal use and not used for labor and materials on the job, and the balance of $25,623.38 was used for the labor and materials. Regard*802less of which of the conflicting evidence of the affidavit and the deposition is accepted as the truth, the defendant-owner has failed to make out a valid defense to the lien, in the absence of an affidavit from the contractor as required by *Code Ann.*§ 67-2001 (2), since in either event it appears that the amount of plaintiff’s claim of lien is less than that portion of the contract price which was not applied to payment of valid claims for labor and materials employed in constructing the improvement. *Tuck v. Moss Mfg. Co.,*127 Ga. 729 (1) (56 SE 1001); *Massachusetts Bonding &c. Co. v. Realty Trust Co.,*142 Ga. 499 (3) (83 SE 210); *Green v. Farrar Lumber Co.,*119 Ga. 30 (46 SE 62). That there may be other claims of lien in an amount in excess of such portion of the contract price is no defense to the lien asserted in the present case. *Tuck v. Moss Mfg. Co.,*127 Ga. 729 (4), supra. There being no proper affidavit from the contractor as required by law, and the amount of the asserted lien coming within the portion of the contract price not applied to payment of valid claims for labor and materials, the court did not err in .granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Decided May 22, 1964

Rehearing denied June 4, 1964.

*Parks & Eisenberg, David S. Eisenberg,*for plaintiff in error.

*Claude Hambrich,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
#### § 588.410 Setoffs prohibited.

A setoff against blocked property (including a blocked account), whether by a U.S. financial institution or other U.S. person, is a prohibited transfer under § 588.201 if effected after the effective date.
#### § 548.601 Records and reports.

For provisions relating to required records and reports, see part 501, subpart C, of this chapter. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed by part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered requirements arising pursuant to this part.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 315.57 When a certifying officer may not certify. Certifying officers may not certify the requests for payment of bonds, or appropriate Fiscal Service forms if, in their own right or in a representative capacity, they ( a ) Have an interest in the bonds, or
( b ) Will, by virtue of the requests being certified, acquire an interest in the bonds.
§ 590.405 Provision and receipt of services. ( a ) The prohibitions contained in § 590.201 apply to services performed in the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located: ( 1 ) On behalf of or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 590.201; or
( 2 ) With respect to property interests of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 590.201.
( b ) The prohibitions on transactions contained in § 590.201 apply to services received in the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located, where the service is performed by or at the direction of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 590.201.
( c ) For example, U.S. persons may not, except as authorized by or pursuant to this part, provide legal, accounting, financial, brokering, freight forwarding, transportation, public relations, or other services to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 590.201, or negotiate with or enter into contracts signed by a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 590.201.
Note 1 to § 590.405 .
*See* §§ 590.507 and 590.509 for general licenses authorizing the provision of certain legal and emergency medical services.