alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 85/8 Ap

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 85 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 498 April 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 85

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 498 April 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 085/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 085/2 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 2 |
| 2006/C 085/3 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 4 |
| 2006/C 085/4 | Uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) (Classification of goods) | 5 |
| 2006/C 085/5 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4189 — Deutsche Bank/Lone Star/Vivanco Gruppe) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 6 |
| 2006/C 085/6 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 86/594/EEC of 1 December 1986 on airborne noise emitted by household appliances (1) | 7 |
| 2006/C 085/7 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4176 — Deutsche Bank e.a./Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 9 |
| 2006/C 085/8 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4057 — Korsnäs/Assidomän Cartonboard) (1) | 10 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 085/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 085/2

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

2

2006/C 085/3

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

4

2006/C 085/4

Uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) (Classification of goods)

5

2006/C 085/5

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4189 — Deutsche Bank/Lone Star/Vivanco Gruppe) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

6

2006/C 085/6

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 86/594/EEC of 1 December 1986 on airborne noise emitted by household appliances (1)

7

2006/C 085/7

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4176 — Deutsche Bank e.a./Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

9

2006/C 085/8

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4057 — Korsnäs/Assidomän Cartonboard) (1)

10

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4191

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL SHAWN TUCKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (2:06-cr-00179)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 6, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Schles, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.

Miller, United States Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United

States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*Although Tucker’s brief states that he received an eightyseven month sentence, the judgment provides a term of eighty-four

months’ imprisonment. 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Shawn Tucker appeals the eighty-four month

sentence he received after pleading guilty to conspiracy to

manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846

(2000). Tucker argues that this court improperly affords a

presumption of reasonableness to sentences that fall within the

properly calculated guidelines range, and that the sentence he

received exceeded the term necessary to effectuate the sentencing

objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.

2006). As we conclude that neither claim has merit, we affirm.

At sentencing, the parties agreed that the applicable

advisory guidelines range was seventy to eight-seven months’

imprisonment. The eighty-four month term of imprisonment imposed

by the district court falls within that range.* Moreover, the term

is substantially below the twenty-year maximum authorized by 21

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2000). Accordingly, Tucker’s sentence is

presumptively reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339,

341 (4th Cir. 2006). Although Tucker challenges the validity and

constitutionality of this presumption of reasonableness, the

Supreme Court recently upheld our application of the presumption,

Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007), and Tucker

offers no compelling argument to rebut it. Accordingly, Tucker’s
- 3 -

challenge fails. We further reject Tucker’s conclusory contention

that his sentence exceeds that which would be necessary to fulfill

the sentencing objectives enumerated in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a). 

We affirm Tucker’s sentence. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

 AFFIRMED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARVIN CRAIG,

Appellant,

v.

DOROTHY SMITH,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3212

[January 8, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael G. Kaplan, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

062018DR007142AXDVCE.

Marvin Craig, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Ricketts v. Ricketts, 790 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 

2001).

TAYLOR, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…China

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: China			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: People's Republic of China 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: People's Republic of China

During the review period, the government made its enacted budget and end-of-year report accessible to the general public, including online, but it did not publish an executive budget proposal before enactment of the budget.  Information on debt obligations was publicly available but not always complete or up to date.  The government does not publish reliable figures for foreign assistance and international commercial and concessional lending.  Budget documents did not identify financial allocations to or earnings from state-owned enterprises, and not all significant, large state-owned enterprises controlled by the central government had publicly available audited financial statements nor did they disclose their debt holdings.  The supreme audit institution does not meet international standards of independence, but it did review the government’s accounts and make audit reports publicly available within a reasonable period of time.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were specified in law and regulation.  The government generally appeared to follow applicable laws and regulations in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available.  Sovereign wealth funds disclosed their sources of funding but not their general approaches to withdrawals. PRC’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- publishing executive budget proposals ahead of the budget’s enactment;
- providing timely and complete information on debt obligations;
- detailing debt holdings as well as financial allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises in the budget or other public documents;
- publishing audit reports for significant, large state-owned enterprises;
- ensuring the supreme audit institution that meets international standards of independence; and
- disclosing general approach to withdrawals for sovereign wealth funds.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: People's Republic of China 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsChinaDivision for International Finance and Development

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
42184.

#### GLAZE v. FULTON NATIONAL BANK OF ATLANTA.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

1. “Where in an answer by paragraphs to a petition bringing suit on a promissory note, a defendant makes in answer to one paragraph a general denial of the indebtedness as alleged in the petition, and such answer nowhere sets up any legal defense, such denial is in effect a plea of the general issue.” *Kingery v. Yancey Bros. Co.,*100 Ga. App. 178, 180 (110 SE2d 411) and citations. “This general denial (as against an unconditional contract in writing, and in the absence of a plea of non est factum) amounts to no plea at all, so far as indebtedness is concerned.” *Medlock v. Wood,*4 Ga. App. 368, 369 (61 SE 516). The allegation in defendant’s answer denying the paragraph of plaintiff’s petition alleging the indebtedness is insufficient as a defense against recovery for the principal and interest on the note. *Wood v. Noland Credit Co.,*113 Ga. App. 749 (2) (149 SE2d 720).

2. However, where in another paragraph of defendant’s answer defendant denies a paragraph of plaintiff’s petition alleging the giving of the notice required by *Code Ann.*§ 20-506 in order to recover attorney’s fees provided by the note sued upon, this denial is a sufficient defense on the issue of attorney’s fees, and therefore, the answer, though defective in other respects is not wholly bad. *Hicks v. Hamilton,*3 Ga. App. 112, 117 (59 SE 331). See also *Kreischer v. Bank of Louisville,*32 Ga. App. 699 (3, 4) (124 SE 539); *Greenwood v. Greenwood,*44 Ga. App. 847 (2) (163 SE 317). A general demurrer to a plea some parts of which are sufficient should be overruled. *Finney v. Cadwallader,*55 Ga. 75 (3); *Hicks v. Hamilton,*supra. The trial court erred in sustaining plaintiff’s general *292demurrer to defendant’s answer, which presents an issuable defense to- plaintiff’s case as laid, and in entering judgment for plaintiff for principal, interest and attorney’s fees.

Submitted July 8, 1966

Decided September 14, 1966.

*Merritt & Pruitt, Glyndon C. Pruitt,*for appellant.

*Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers, McClatchey & Regenstein, Carl I. Gable, Jr.,*for appellee.

The judgment will be affirmed with direction that plaintiff write off the amount of attorney’s fees included in the judgment. Upon failure-to do so- the judgment will stand reversed.

*Judgment affirmed with direction.*

*Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 10.1

 

FIRST EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This First Extension of Employment Agreement (the “First Extension” dated April 23, 2015, and by vote of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc., to be retroactive to and effective January 29, 2015, is made between Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation with its principal place of business at 481 Edward H. Ross Drive, Elmwood Park, New Jersey 07407 (the “Company”) and Howard Dubinett (the “Employee”).

 

WITNESSETH:

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement effective February 1, 2012 (the “Employment Agreement”) which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as an attachment; and

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee intend to extend that Employment Agreement by this First Extension as set forth in this First Extension;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows:

 

1.  The parties hereby modify Paragraph 1 of the Employment Agreement to read as follows:

 

“1.  Term of Employment.  The Company agrees to continue to employ the Employee as its Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and the Employee agrees to continue his employment with the Company, for a period commencing as of the Effective Date through January 31, 2017 (the “Expiration Date”), unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 5 hereof.  The period of time between the Effective Date and the termination of the Employee’s employment hereunder shall be referred to herein as the “Employment Period”.”

 











 

2.  The parties and each of them acknowledge, understand and agree that all terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement have been carried out to date as set forth in the Employment Agreement.

 

3.  The parties and each of them confirm, ratify and affirm all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement as if recited herein.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Extension on the Effective Date stated hereinabove.

 

	
 
    	
COMPANY:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Marc D. Grodman
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Marc D. Grodman, M.D.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Chief Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Duly Authorized
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
EMPLOYEE:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
/s/ Howard Dubinett
    
	
 
    	
Howard Dubinett
§ 1081.305 Post-hearing filings. ( a ) *Proposed findings and conclusions and supporting briefs.* ( 1 ) Using the same method of service for each party, the hearing officer will serve notice upon each party that the certified transcript, together with all hearing exhibits and exhibits introduced but not admitted into evidence at the hearing, has been filed promptly after that filing. Any party may file with the hearing officer proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and a proposed order within 28 days following service of this notice by the hearing officer or within such longer period as may be ordered by the hearing officer.
( 2 ) Proposed findings and conclusions must be supported by citation to any relevant authorities and by page references to any relevant portions of the record. A post-hearing brief may be filed in support of proposed findings and conclusions, either as part of the same document or in a separate document.
( b ) *Responsive briefs.* Responsive briefs may be filed within 14 days after the date on which the parties' proposed findings, conclusions, and order are due. Responsive briefs must be strictly limited to responding to matters, issues, or arguments raised in another party's papers. A party who has not filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law or a post-hearing brief may not file a responsive brief. Unless directed by the hearing officer, reply briefs are not permitted.
( c ) *Order of filing.* The hearing officer may not order the filing by any party of any post-hearing brief or responsive brief in advance of the other party's filing of its post-hearing brief or responsive brief.
§ 1014.5 Recordkeeping requirements. ( a ) Any person subject to this part shall keep, for a period of twenty-four months from the last date the person made or disseminated the applicable commercial communication regarding any term of any mortgage credit product, the following evidence of compliance with this part: ( 1 ) Copies of all materially different commercial communications as well as sales scripts, training materials, and marketing materials, regarding any term of any mortgage credit product, that the person made or disseminated during the relevant time period;
( 2 ) Documents describing or evidencing all mortgage credit products available to consumers during the time period in which the person made or disseminated each commercial communication regarding any term of any mortgage credit product, including but not limited to the names and terms of each such mortgage credit product available to consumers; and
( 3 ) Documents describing or evidencing all additional products or services (such as credit insurance or credit disability insurance) that are or may be offered or provided with the mortgage credit products available to consumers during the time period in which the person made or disseminated each commercial communication regarding any term of any mortgage credit product, including but not limited to the names and terms of each such additional product or service available to consumers.
( b ) Any person subject to this part may keep the records required by paragraph (a) of this section in any legible form, and in the same manner, format, or place as they keep such records in the ordinary course of business. Failure to keep all records required under paragraph (a) of this section shall be a violation of this part.
§ 1008.1 Purpose. ( a ) *Authority.* This part, known as Regulation H, is issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to implement the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, title V of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (S.A.F.E. Act) (Pub. L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, 12 U.S.C. 5101 *et seq.*).
( b ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this part is to enhance consumer protection and reduce fraud by directing states to adopt minimum uniform standards for the licensing and registration of residential mortgage loan originators and to participate in a nationwide mortgage licensing system and registry database of residential mortgage loan originators. Under the S.A.F.E. Act, if the Bureau determines that a state's loan origination licensing system does not meet the minimum requirements of the S.A.F.E. Act, the Bureau is charged with establishing and implementing a system for all loan originators in that state. Additionally, if at any time the Bureau determines that the nationwide mortgage licensing system and registry is failing to meet the S.A.F.E. Act's requirements, the Bureau is charged with establishing and maintaining a licensing and registry database for loan originators.
( c ) *Organization.* The regulation is divided into subparts and appendices as follows: ( 1 ) Subpart A establishes the definitions applicable to this part.
( 2 ) Subpart B provides the minimum standards that a state must meet in licensing loan originators, including standards for whom a state must require to be licensed, and sets forth the Bureau's procedure for determining a state's compliance with the minimum standards.
( 3 ) Subpart C provides the requirements that the Bureau will apply in any state that the Bureau determines has not established a licensing and registration system in compliance with the minimum standards of the S.A.F.E. Act.
( 4 ) Subpart D provides minimum requirements for the administration of the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry.
( 5 ) Subpart E clarifies the Bureau's enforcement authority in states in which it operates a state licensing system.
( 6 ) Appendices A through D set forth examples to aid in the understanding and application of the regulations.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-40267 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ERNESTO VALLES MORENO, also known as Rocky, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:09-CR-100-4
Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Ernesto Valles Moreno has m oved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967), and United State s v . Flores , 632 F.3d 2 29 ( 5th Cir. 2011). Valles Moreno has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s b rief and the relevant portions of t he recor d r eflected therein, as well as Valles Moreno’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment t hat t he appe a l p r e s e n ts no nonfrivolous issue for a ppellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s m otion for leave U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D February 19, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-40267 Document: 00512146729 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2013No. 12-40267

to withdr a w i s GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and t he APPEAL I S DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. V alles Moreno’s motions for oral argument and appointment of new counsel are DENIED.

2 Case: 12-40267 Document: 00512146729 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2013
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Republic of the Congo

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Republic of the Congo			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Republic of the Congo 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Republic of the Congo

During the review period, the government made its enacted budget widely and easily accessible to the general public, including online.  However, it did not make its executive budget proposal or end-of-year report publicly available within a reasonable period of time.  Information on debt obligations was not publicly available.  Budget documents did not provide a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams.  The government maintained off-budget accounts not subject to audit or oversight.  Publicly available budget documents did not include allocations to, earnings from, or debt information of state-owned enterprises.  Because of a lack of budget execution reports, budget reliability could not be assessed.  The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence and did not make audit reports available for review.  The criteria and procedures by which the government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were specified in law, but the government applied the law inconsistently.  The government made basic information on natural resource extraction publicly available.   The Republic of Congo’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- making its executive budget proposal and end-of-year report widely and easily accessible to the general public;
- making information on government debt obligations available;
- providing a more comprehensive accounting of off-budget accounts and subjecting such accounts to audit and oversight;
- detailing allocations to, earnings from, and debt information of state-owned enterprises in budget documents;
- enhancing the completeness and reliability of budget reporting and information on debt obligations,
- ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence and publishes audit reports within a reasonable period of time; and
- ensuring the government follows applicable laws and regulations in awarding contracts and licenses for natural resource extraction.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Republic of the Congo 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentRepublic of the Congo

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future