alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED INCOJRT Or APPEALS 12mCoir of Appeals District

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

11/19/2015 COA No. 12-14-00005-CR 

### FINLEY, JOSEPH Tr. Ct. No. 2013-0140 PD-1110-15 

### This is to serve notice to the court ofappeals that this Court granted a motion for extension of time to file a petition for discretionary review until October 20, 2015. Thetime forfiling the petition fordiscretionaryreview has expired. Abel Acosta, Clerk 12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK CATHY LUSK 

### 1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354 TYLER, TX 75701 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * FILE COPY
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

▲★

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

06/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.50 N 76.81 W Meters AGL
Exhibit23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-36795; Form S-8 No.333-36199; Form S-8 No. 33-68862; Form S-8 No. 333-09663; Form S-8 No.333-63434; Form S-8 No. 333-63436 and Form S-8 No. 333-63438) ofMerrimac Industries, Inc. of our report dated March  29,2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of Merrimac Industries, Inc. for the year ended January3,  2004, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December  31,  2005.

|                          |  |  |
|--------------------------|--|--|
| /s/ Ernst & YoungLLP |
|                          |

MetroPark, New Jersey

March 29, 2006

----
CONFIDENTIAL DIAGRAM REMOVED 
CONFIDENTIAL DIAGRAM REMOVED
**U.S.B.
      HOLDING CO., INC.**


**SUBSIDIARIES**





**EXHIBIT
      21**





**December
      31, 2006**




Union
      State Bank


100
      Dutch
      Hill Road


Orangeburg,
      New York 10962





U.S.B.
      Financial Services, Inc. (subsidiary of Union State Bank)


100
      Dutch
      Hill Road


Orangeburg,
      New York 10962





Dutch
      Hill Realty Corp. (subsidiary of Union State Bank)


100
      Dutch
      Hill Road


Orangeburg,
      New York 10962





USB
      Delaware Inc. (subsidiary of Union State Bank)


103
      Foulk
      Road


Wilmington,
      Delaware 19801





TPNZ
      Preferred Funding Corporation (subsidiary of USB Delaware Inc.)


100
      Dutch
      Hill Road


Orangeburg,
      New York 10962





Union
      State Capital Trust I


100
      Dutch
      Hill Road


Orangeburg,
      New York 10962





Union
      State Statutory Trust II


100
      Dutch
      Hill Road


Orangeburg,
      New York 10962





USB
      Statutory Trust III


100
      Dutch
      Hill Road


Orangeburg,
      New York 10962





Union
      State Statutory Trust IV


100
      Dutch
      Hill Road


Orangeburg,
      New York 10962





Ad
      Con, Inc.


100
      Dutch
      Hill Road


Orangeburg,
      New York 10962
# C_2006154EN.01001601.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/16

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May 2006 — Eurohypo v OHIM (EUROHYPO)

(Case T-439/04) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark EUROHYPO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Examination of the facts by the Board of Appeal of its own motion - Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 - Admissibility of facts submitted for the first time before the Court of First Instance)

(2006/C 154/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eurohypo AG (Eschborn, Germany) (represented by: M.Kloth and C.Rohnke, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and J. Weberndörfer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2004 (Case R 829/2002-4) concerning the registration of the word mark EUROHYPO as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 19.2.2005

1

---
#### WALT DISNEY WORLD COMPANY, Appellant, v. Louise MOLTER, Appellee.

No. YY-129.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 10, 1981.

*1171Lee G. Schmudde, Orlando, for appellant.

John Marshall Kest of Wooten, Honeywell, Kest & Martinez, Orlando, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier appeals a workers’ compensation order awarding fees to the claimant’s attorney for obtaining an increase in compensation benefits from $87.60 to $130.00 per week. At the time the claimant sustained her compensable injury, the employer/carrier was unaware that she was also employed at a second job and failed to include income therefrom in its computation of benefits. All other benefits were promptly paid by the employer/carrier. Seven months subsequent to the injury, after consulting an attorney, the claimant notified the employer of her concurrent employment and claimed an increased compensation rate. Within 21 days of the receipt of this claim, the employer increased the claimant’s rate and forwarded a lump sum check to her as an adjustment to benefits previously paid. All subsequent disability benefits were timely paid at the corrected rate.

The Deputy Commissioner determined that the claimant’s attorney was entitled to a fee for bringing about an increase in rate, and that the employer had failed to make an “in-depth inquiry with regard to the average weekly wage and concurrent employment.”

The employer/carrier urges that the award of attorney’s fees was erroneous because the claim was investigated immediately upon receipt, and all benefits claimed were paid within 21 days. Florida Statutes, Section 440.34(1) (1978 Supp.). We agree. This case is distinguishable from situations where the employer stands behind “a wall of willful ignorance” and fails to investigate medical facts even after being notified that benefits may be due. *E. g., Davis v. Edwin M. Green, Inc.,*240 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1970). The claimant has a duty to make her claim known. Here, there was nothing to put the carrier on notice that additional benefits might be due. Accordingly, the award of attorney’s fees based on additional benefits attributable to claimant’s concurrent employment is REVERSED.

BOOTH, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
#### JOHANNA GLYNIS, RESPONDENT, v. CHARLES L. WRIGHT, APPELLANT.

Argued May 19, 1939

Decided September 22, 1939.

For the appellant, *Kalisch & Kalisch.*

For the respondent, *Nathan Rabinowitz.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered *per curiam*in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— -The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Bodine, Heher, Peeskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— None.
# C_2005210EN.01001301.xml

| 27.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/13

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3899 — Danaher/Leica MS)

(2005/C 210/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 22 August 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3899. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3899. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 13, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00248

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.M. AND M.B.L., CHILDREN,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 01040 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant's motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Because this is an accelerated appeal from the termination of appellant’s parental rights, no further extensions of time will be granted.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on th is 13th day of June, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designation of Three Guatemalan Public Officials for Involvement in Significant Corruption

# 											Designation of Three Guatemalan Public Officials for Involvement in Significant Corruption									

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

October 31, 2023

The United States is designating** Gendri Rocael Reyes Mazariegos (“Reyes”)**, former Minister of the Interior, **Alberto Pimentel Mata (“Pimentel”)**, former Minister of Energy and Mines (MEM), and** Oscar Rafael Perez Ramirez (“Perez”)**, Vice Minister of Sustainable Development under the MEM, as generally ineligible for entry into the United States, due to their involvement in significant corruption.

Reyes, Pimentel, and Perez accepted bribes in exchange for their performance of their public functions during their tenures.  Their corrupt actions undermined rule of law and government transparency in Guatemala.

The United States stands with Guatemalans who work to promote accountability for corrupt actors.  We also reaffirm our commitment to counter corruption globally, which harms the public interest, weakens the rule of law and democratic institutions, hampers economic prosperity, and curtails governments’ ability to respond effectively to their people’s needs.  

Corruption undermines democracy and public trust in institutions.  The United States remains committed to use all available tools to promote accountability for those who undermine democracy in Guatemala, including those who attempt to undermine the August 20 elections.

*These public designations are made under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2023, as carried forward by the Continuing Appropriations Act.  The Department is also designating Reyes’ adult daughter Melanny Elizabeth Reyes Argueta, Reyes’ minor children, Pimentel’s spouse Ana Isabel Carrillo Fabian De Pimentel, Pimentel’s minor children, and Perez’s spouse Elbia Carolina Cruz Muralles as generally ineligible for entry into the United States.*

Tags

7031(c)Anti-Corruption and TransparencyBureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCorruptionDemocracyElectionsGuatemalaMinesOffice of the SpokespersonSustainable DevelopmentTransparency

Back to Top
# C_2005205EN.01001001.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Dusseldorf by order of that court of 6 June 2005 in Metro International GmbH v Hauptzollamt Dusseldorf

(Case C-245/05)

(2005/C 205/18)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Dusseldorf of 6 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 10 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Metro International GmbH and Hauptzollamt Dusseldorf on the following question:

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 invalid since the application of the practice of ‘zeroing’ in determining weighted average dumping margins (1) is referred to neither in the recitals to Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan nor in the recitals to the preceding measure, that is to say Commission Regulation (EC) No 1069/97 of 12 June 1997 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1997 L 332, p. 1.

1

---
#### Tony ELERBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. U-357.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 7, 1975.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3412 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3412

  To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the 
feasibility of establishing Calumet Ecological Park in the vicinity of 
                           Chicago, Illinois.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 1996

  Mr. Weller introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the 
feasibility of establishing Calumet Ecological Park in the vicinity of 
                           Chicago, Illinois.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Calumet Ecological Park Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. FEASIBILITY STUDY.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a 
study of the feasibility of establishing an urban ecological park to be 
known as ``Calumet Ecological Park'', in the Lake Calumet area situated 
between the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor and 
the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.
    (b) Particulars of Study.--The study under subsection (a) shall 
include consideration of the following:
            (1) The suitability of establishing a park in the Lake 
        Calumet area that--
                    (A) conserves and protects the wealth of natural 
                resources threatened by development and pollution in 
                the Lake Calumet area; and
                    (B) consists of a number of nonadjacent sites 
                forming green corridors between the Illinois and 
                Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor and the 
                Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, that are based on the 
                lakes and waterways in the area.
            (2) The long term future use of the Lake Calumet area.
            (3) Ways in which a Calumet Ecological Park would--
                    (A) benefit and enhance the cultural, historical, 
                and natural resources of the Lake Calumet area; and
                    (B) preserve natural lands and habitats in the Lake 
                Calumet area and northwest Indiana.
    (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report 
containing findings and recommendations of a study under this section.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT32.1****CERTIFICATION***Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002*In connection with the Quarterly Report of Auto Underwriters of America, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Dean Antonis, as Principal Executive Officer of theCompany hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.   /s/ Dean Antonis   Dean Antonis  President (Principal Executive Officer)  Date: March 22, 2006  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# C_2006025EN.01000101.xml

| 1.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

31 January 2006

(2006/C 25/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2118 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 142,17 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4639 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68430 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2503 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5547 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 75,73 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0920 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5739 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,408 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 252,71 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8377 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6160 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,47 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,370 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6057 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6070 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3870 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3995 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7698 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9672 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 168,96 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,4105 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7681 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3510 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 359,41 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,545 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,195 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,0880 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,271 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2118

JPY

Japanese yen

142,17

DKK

Danish krone

7,4639

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68430

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2503

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5547

ISK

Iceland króna

75,73

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0920

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5739

CZK

Czech koruna

28,408

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

252,71

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8377

RON

Romanian leu

3,6160

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,47

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,370

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6057

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6070

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3870

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3995

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7698

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9672

KRW

South Korean won

1 168,96

ZAR

South African rand

7,4105

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7681

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3510

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 359,41

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,545

PHP

Philippine peso

63,195

RUB

Russian rouble

34,0880

THB

Thai baht

47,271

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
AMENDMENT TWELVE
                                   to the
                                VAR AGREEMENT
                                   between
                 SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
                                     and
                             ORACLE CORPORATION


This Amendment Twelve shall serve to amend the VAR Agreement between Systems
& Computer Technology Corporation (the "VAR") and Oracle Corporation
("Oracle") dated September 1, 1991 (the "Agreement") and any amendments
thereto, including Amendment Nine to the Agreement dated June 12, 1995
("Amendment Nine").

The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

1.   In Section 1 of the Amendment Nine, "Explorer 2000" shall be deleted
     and replaced with "Discoverer 2000."

Other than the modification set forth above, the terms and conditions of the
Agreement remain unchanged, and in full force and effect.

The Effective Date of this Amendment Twelve is August 20, 1995.



SYSTEMS and COMPUTER
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION                  ORACLE CORPORATION

By:    /s/ Michael D. Chamberlain       By:     /s/ Matthew J. Hiatt
       -----------------------------            ------------------------

Name:  Michael D. Chamberlain           Name:   Matthew J, Hiatt
       -----------------------------            ------------------------

                                                Manager - East Region
Title: President, SCT Software Group    Title:  Channels Sales Support
       -----------------------------            ------------------------
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.602 Request for an ALJ hearing. ( a ) *How and where to file a request.* A party must file a written request for a hearing with the entity specified in the IRE's reconsideration notice.
( b ) *When to file a request.* ( 1 ) Except when an ALJ or attorney adjudicator extends the time frame as provided in part 405 of this chapter, a party must file a request for a hearing within 60 calendar days of receipt of the notice of a reconsidered determination. The time and place for a hearing before an ALJ will be set in accordance with § 405.1020 of this chapter.
( 2 ) For purposes of this section, the date of receipt of the reconsideration is presumed to be 5 calendar days after the date of the notice of the reconsidered determination, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
( c ) *Parties to a hearing.* The parties to a hearing are the parties to the reconsideration, the MA organization, and any other person or entity whose rights with respect to the reconsideration may be affected by the hearing, as determined by the ALJ.
( d ) *Insufficient amount in controversy.* ( 1 ) If a request for a hearing clearly shows that the amount in controversy is less than that required under § 422.600, the ALJ dismisses the request.
( 2 ) If, after a hearing is initiated, the ALJ finds that the amount in controversy is less than the amount required under § 422.600, the ALJ discontinues the hearing and does not rule on the substantive issues raised in the appeal.
[63 FR 35107, June 26, 1998, as amended at 70 FR 4740, Jan. 28, 2005; 82 FR 5125, Jan. 17, 2017]
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000940 21-MAY-2015 08:34 AM