alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005188EN.01001101.xml

| 2.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 188/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 188/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3643 — Sephora/El Corte Ingles/JV)

(2005/C 188/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 9 March 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 Spanish 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 32005M3643. 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 32005M3643. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Annual Report of Princeton National Bancorp, Inc. (PNBC) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Thomas D. Ogaard,
President & Chief Executive Officer of PNBC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

|    |                                                                                                                                                 
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                         
|    |                                                                                                                                                 
|(2) | The
 information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and result of operations of PNBC.

|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas D.
 Ogaard               
|                                    
|                                    
|Thomas D.
 Ogaard                   
|President
 & Chief Executive Officer
|                                    
|March 26,
 2010                     

---
#### STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Hal BROWN, Jr., Appellant.

No. 56097.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 1975.

Aubrey E. Pate, Kenner, for appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Woodrow *25W. Erwin, Dist. Atty., Julian J. Rodrigue, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

TATE, Justice.

The defendant appeals from a conviction of indecent behavior with a juvenile, La. R.S. 14:81, and a sentence to two years in the parish prison, suspended.

The prosecutor concedes that we must reverse this conviction on the defendant’s first assignment of error unless we are willing to overrule *State v. Prieur, 277*So.2d 126 (La.1973). In the 1974 trial, over objection the State introduced evidence of another unrelated sex offense although it had not given the defendant advance notice of its intent to do so, in violation of *Prieur.*If admissible despite this failure, the purpose of the evidence was to show criminal intent to commit the crime charged, i. e., by showing a similar purpose to a similar act in the past, one of the limited purposes for which evidence of other crimes is admissible in aid of proof of guilt of the crime charged, La.R.S. 15:445, 446.

We are unwilling to overrule *Prieur.*It is our belief that the decision is a valid interpretation safeguarding the legislative intent of La.R.S. 15:445, 446, and the general principle of our criminal procedure that the accused should be convicted on evidence of the crime with which he is charged, not because of his possible bad reputation or of his possible guilt of conduct independent of the offense for which tried.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial in accordance with law.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

SANDERS, C. J., dissents. See dissent in *State v. Prieur,*La., 277 So.2d 134.

SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., dissent.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.2410 General requirements. ( a ) For contracts beginning in 2014 or later, an MA organization (defined at § 422.2) is required to report the information required under § 422.2460 for each contract under this part for each contract year.
( b ) *MLR requirement.* If CMS determines for a contract year that an MA organization has an MLR for a contract that is less than 0.85, the MA organization has not met the MLR requirement and must remit to CMS an amount equal to the product of the following: ( 1 ) The total revenue of the MA contract for the contract year.
( 2 ) The difference between 0.85 and the MLR for the contract year.
( c ) If CMS determines that an MA organization has an MLR for a contract that is less than 0.85 for 3 or more consecutive contract years, CMS does not permit the enrollment of new enrollees under the contract for coverage during the second succeeding contract year.
( d ) If CMS determines that an MA organization has an MLR for a contract that is less than 0.85 for 5 consecutive contract years, CMS terminates the contract per § 422.510(b)(1) and (d) effective as of the second succeeding contract year.
[78 FR 31307, May 23, 2013, as amended at 83 FR 16736, Apr. 16, 2018]
#### Bruck *v.*The Quick Withdrawal Building Assn. Co. et al.

*Appeal and error*— Bond *not filed within time.*

(No. 16418

Decided March 16, 1920.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county.

*Mr. P. S. Phillips*and *Mr. A. W.*Bruck, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Fyffe Chambers,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be and the same is hereby affirmed; the court of appeals was right in sustaining the motion of the defendant in error and dismissing the appeal of said cause to that court for the reason that the appeal bond was not filed within the time prescribed by statute.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Nichols, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Johnson, Wanamaker, Robinson and Merrell, JJ., concur.
#### The State, ex rel. Inter-Insurance Agency Co., *v.*Tomlinson, Superintendent of Insurance.

*Insurance*— Mutual *protective or stock companies*— iKinds *of business authorized*— -Automobile *insurance*— *Section 9607-2, General Code (107 O. L., 647)*— Fire *insurance authorised, when.*

(No. 16441

Decided January 13, 1920.)

In Mandamus.

*Messrs. Bennett, Westfall & Bennett*and *Mr. Geo. E.*Nichols, for relator.

*Mr. John G. Price,*attorney general, and *Mr. B. W. Gearheart,*for respondent.

This cause being heard by the court upon the demurrer of the defendant to the petition of the relator, the court being fully advised, finds said demurrer not well taken, and overrules the same.

The court further finds that the relator, under and by virtue of the provisions of sub-section 4, Section 9607-2, General Code (107 O. L., 647), is authorized to enter into contracts of insurance or reinsurance in the state of Ohio, with respect to automobile property, against the hazards of theft, property damage, collision and liability to the public, and in connection therewith against the hazard of fire.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged, that *a*writ of mandamus be issued out of this court, directed to the defendant as Superintendent of Insurance of the State of Ohio, commanding him as such *509superintendent to issue to the relator, a ■ license authorizing and granting it authority to exchange contracts of indemnity between the relator’s subscribers, covering loss and damage by public liability.

*Writ allowed.*

Nichols, C. J., Jones, Johnson and Robinson, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.

[On March 10, 1921, the following entry was journalized. — Reporter.]

This cause coming on to be heard on the application for a rehearing and reargument of the above case and in open court at said rehearing, the application therefor having been granted, by agreement of counsel for relator and respondent, it is hereby ordered that the judgment entry made herein on Jan. 13, 1920, recorded in Journal 28, page 368, be vacated and that the writ of mandamus in this cause hereinbefore issued be and the same is hereby recalled and the above entitled cause is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

*Dismissed by consent of parties.*
EXHIBIT
23











CONSENT
OF HANNIS T. BOURGEOIS, LLP


INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

















We
consent to the use of our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm dated March 5, 2008 on the consolidated financial statements of Britton
& Koontz Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries for the years ended December
31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, to be included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.







/s/ Hannis T. Bourgeouis, LLP


HANNIS
T. BOURGEOIS, LLP


Baton
Rouge, Louisiana


March 7,
2008
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Monday, October 19, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Monday, October 19, 2009, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Sallie Chavez. For more information please contact Ms. Chavez at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the                     *Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues. 

Dated: August 31, 2009. 

Shawn F. Collins, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-21466 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### The Erie Railroad Co. *v.*Garman. The Erie Railroad Co. *v.*Smith.

*•Injunction and damages*— Jurisdiction *to order nuisance,*abated.— *Railroad embankment obstructs surface water.*

(Nos. 16315 and 16316

Decided April 27, 1920.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Wayne county.

*Mr. Frank Heath*and *Messrs. Cook, McGowan, Foote, Bushnell & Lamb,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Hiram B. Swartz,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be and the same is hereby affirmed for the reason that the finding of facts by the court of appeals, which was concededly supported by the evidence,- fully warranted the order made by that court to abate the nuisance complained of in the manner specified, and in such manner disposing of the water, the flow of which was obstructed by the plaintiff in error’s embankment and caused the continuing damage complained of.

*Judgments affirmed.*

Nichols, C. J., Jones, Matthias and Johnson, JJ., concur in cause No. 16315. Merrell, J., not participating.

Nichols, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Johnson and Wanamaker, JJ., concur in cause No. 16316. Merrell, J., not participating.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 31.1

      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Michael D. Chamberlain, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Systems & Computer
Technology Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: December 23, 2003

/s/ Michael D. Chamberlain
------------------------------------------
Michael D. Chamberlain, President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3288 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3288

  To direct that funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for 
  fiscal year 1996 for certain medical research relating to illnesses 
   suffered by veterans who served in the Persian Gulf War shall be 
  obligated in accordance with peer review procedures of the Food and 
                          Drug Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 1996

 Mr. Browder introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct that funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for 
  fiscal year 1996 for certain medical research relating to illnesses 
   suffered by veterans who served in the Persian Gulf War shall be 
  obligated in accordance with peer review procedures of the Food and 
                          Drug Administration.

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

SECTION 1. PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES TO BE USED FOR CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF 
              DEFENSE MEDICAL RESEARCH.

    (a) Procedures To Be Used.--The Secretary of Defense, in 
determining the manner in which to obligate the funds referred to in 
subsection (b), shall direct that the peer review guidelines to be used 
for such purpose shall be those applicable to the Food and Drug 
Administration (under 21 CFR chapter 1, part 56), rather than the peer 
review procedures otherwise applicable to the Army.
    ((b) Covered Funds.--The funds to which subsection (a) applies are 
those funds specified for a treatment protocol and related studies for 
Desert Storm-syndrome affected veterans in the third proviso under the 
heading ``Defense Health Program'' in title VII of the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-61; 109 Stat. 649).
                                 <all>
```
# C_2005307EN.01000101.xml

| 3.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 307/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 307/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

2 December 2005

(2005/C 307/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1697 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,36 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4524 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67745 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4260 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5437 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 74,73 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9170 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9552 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5735 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,924 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 252,30 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6965 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8788 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6624 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,51 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,852 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,5916 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5720 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3612 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0713 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6537 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9787 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 214,62 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,4981 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,4519 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3665 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 691,15 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,421 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,269 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,9070 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,451 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1697

JPY

Japanese yen

141,36

DKK

Danish krone

7,4524

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67745

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4260

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5437

ISK

Iceland króna

74,73

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9170

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9552

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5735

CZK

Czech koruna

28,924

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

252,30

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6965

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8788

RON

Romanian leu

3,6624

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,51

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,852

TRY

Turkish lira

1,5916

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5720

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3612

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0713

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6537

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9787

KRW

South Korean won

1 214,62

ZAR

South African rand

7,4981

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,4519

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3665

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 691,15

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,421

PHP

Philippine peso

63,269

RUB

Russian rouble

33,9070

THB

Thai baht

48,451

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### Charles E. HUNTER, Appellant, v. Patricia B. HUNTER, Appellee.

No. 77-2389.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1979.

Louis V. Cianfrogna of Cianfrogna, Tel-fer & Evans, P.A., Titusville, for appellant.

James R. Dressier, Cocoa Beach, for ap-pellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal form a judgment in a marriage dissolution case. The trial court erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony *628for an extended period of time when the only evidence to support that award was that the appellee needed such alimony until she completed the last two years of her education to become a nurse. The award of rehabilitative alimony is hereby reduced to a period of two years from the date of the final judgment. We find no merit in appellant’s other points on appeal and affirm the judgment as modified.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and LETTS, J., concur.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 0 3

- 00 043

- CR

Kent Anthony Krueger

, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2001

- 003 , HONORABLE CHARLES R. RAMSAY , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Kent Anthony Krueger seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for retaliation.
Sentence was imposed on April 24, 2001. Notice of appeal was filed on January 2, 2003, long after the
time for perfecting appeal had expired. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a) . Under the circumstances, we lack
jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for want of
jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App.1998); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d

519, 522

- 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).The appeal is dismissed.

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: February 6, 2003

Do Not Publish