alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 308E/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CE2013.308.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 308E |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5623 October 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CE2013.308.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 308E

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5623 October 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Parliament |
| | WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER |
| 2013/C 308E/1 | Written questions by Members of the European Parliament and their answers given by a European Union institution | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Parliament

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

2013/C 308E/1

Written questions by Members of the European Parliament and their answers given by a European Union institution

1

---

Notice to reader

This publication contains written questions by Members of the European Parliament and their answers given by a European Union institution.

For each question and answer, the original language version is presented before a possible translation.

In some cases, it is possible that the answer is given in a language other than the question. This depends on the working language of the committee requested to provide the answer.

These questions and answers are published in accordance with Rules 117 and 118 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

All questions and answers can be accessed via the website of the European Parliament (Europarl) under the heading ‘Parliamentary questions’:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

ABBREVIATIONS USED FOR POLITICAL GROUPS

| PPE | Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) |
| --- | --- |
| S&D | Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament |
| ALDE | Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe |
| Verts/ALE | Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance |
| ECR | European Conservatives and Reformists Group |
| GUE/NGL | Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left |
| EFD | Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group |
| NI | Non-attached Members |

PPE

Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats)

S&D

Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament

ALDE

Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

Verts/ALE

Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance

ECR

European Conservatives and Reformists Group

GUE/NGL

Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left

EFD

Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group

NI

Non-attached Members

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

EN
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-4586



#  C IAM S INON , a/k/a Harvey Kenyatta Simons, Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.

Robert C. Chambers, District Judge.

(CR-00-00044-3) Submitted: January 10, 2001 Decided: January 23, 2001 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL J. C. Powell, POWELL LAW OFFICES, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John C. Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:Harvey Kenyatta Simons appeals his 168-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. He allegeson appeal that he should have received a reduction under the Sentencing Guidelines for acceptance of responsibility and should not have received an enhancement for obstruction of justice. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Using a false name, Simons pled guilty, testified to the grand jury, and lied to the probation officer regarding his background. Under these circumstances we do not find that the district court clearly erredin applying the appropriate Guideline provisions. First, notwithstanding his guilty plea, Simons failed to accept responsibility for his crime by lying about his identity. United States v. Nale , 101 F.3d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir. 1996); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") § 3E1.1 comment. (n.3) (a defendant who enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an adjustment as a matter of right). Second, Simons’ deceitful conduct may also form the basis for an obstruction of justice enhancement. United States v. Saintil , 910 F.2d 1231, 1232 (4th Cir. 1990); USSG § 3C1.1 & comment. (n.4(f), (g)). Accordingly, we affirm Simons’ sentence. We dispense with oralargument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. S INON
# Official Journal L 113/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 113 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5716 April 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 113

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5716 April 2014

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | | 2014/218/EU |
| | * | Council Decision of 9 April 2014 amending Annexes I, II and III to Decision 2011/432/EU on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance | 1 |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 388/2014 of 10 April 2014 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff | 17 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 389/2014 of 15 April 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 19 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP of 15 April 2014 on the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) | 21 |
| | * | Council Decision 2014/220/CFSP of 15 April 2014 amending Decision 2013/34/CFSP on a European Union military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali) | 27 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

2014/218/EU

*

Council Decision of 9 April 2014 amending Annexes I, II and III to Decision 2011/432/EU on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance

1

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 388/2014 of 10 April 2014 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff

17

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 389/2014 of 15 April 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

19

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP of 15 April 2014 on the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)

21

*

Council Decision 2014/220/CFSP of 15 April 2014 amending Decision 2013/34/CFSP on a European Union military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali)

27

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Exhibit 4.38

 

AGREEMENT ON TERMINATION

 

Party A: Weiling Huang

 

Party B: Shanghai Rampage Shopping Co., Ltd.

 

Party C: Rampage Trading (Shanghai)Co., Ltd.

 

WHEAERS, all parties have entered into the loan agreement, pledge agreement, purchase option agreement and related documents (Be known as “A Series of Agreements” hereinafter)

 

Three parties have reached unanimity through friendly consultations, and entered into this Contract to terminate a series of agreements.

 

1.              A Series of Agreements shall be terminated on June 12, 2014 with consent of all of three parties

 

2.              Party B shall bear the taxes payable arising from the transactions contemplated under A Series of Agreements.

 

3.              All of three parties confirm that Party C has received the loan equal to RMB 1 million from Party A.

 

4.              All of three parties have no dispute and unfinished matter.

 

5.              This Contract shall have three originals. Each party shall hold one original.

 

	
Party A:

/s/ Weiling Huang
    	
 
    	
Party B:

/s/ Shanghai Rampage
    	
 
    	
Party C:

/s/ Rampage
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Shopping Co., Ltd.
    	
 
    	
Trading(Shanghai)Co.,   Ltd.
    
	
Date:
    	
 
    	
Date:
    	
 
    	
Date:
§ 1203.3 Eligible parties. ( a ) To be eligible for an award of fees and other expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the applicant must show that it meets all conditions of eligibility set out in this paragraph and has complied with all the requirements in subpart B of this part. The applicant must also be a party to the adversary adjudication for which it seeks an award.
( b ) To be eligible for an award of fees and other expenses for prevailing parties, a party must be one of the following: ( 1 ) An individual who has a net worth of not more than $2 million;
( 2 ) The sole owner of an unincorporated business who has a net worth of not more than $7 million, including both personal and business interest, and not more than 500 employees; however, a party who owns an unincorporated business will be considered to be an “individual” rather than the “sole owner of an unincorporated business” if the issues on which the party prevails are related primarily to personal interests rather than to business interests;
( 3 ) A charitable or other tax-exempt organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), with not more than 500 employees;
( 4 ) A cooperative association as defined in section 15(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1141j(a), with not more than 500 employees;
( 5 ) Any other partnership, corporation, association, unit of local government, or organization that has a net worth of not more than $7 million and not more than 500 employees; or
( 6 ) For the purposes of an application filed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 504(a)(4), a small entity as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601.
( c ) For purposes of eligibility under this section: ( 1 ) The employees of a party must include all persons who regularly perform services for remuneration for the party, under the party's direction and control. Part-time employees must be included on a proportional basis.
( 2 ) The net worth and number of employees of the party and its affiliates must be aggregated to determine eligibility.
( 3 ) The net worth and number of employees of a party will be determined as of the date the underlying adversary adjudication was initiated.
( 4 ) A party that participates in an adversary adjudication primarily on behalf of one or more entities that would be ineligible for an award is not itself eligible for an award.
Order entered November 16, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00893-CV

MATTHEW FULLER AND FULLER WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Appellants

V.

CRAIG HAUSZ, MICHELLE HAUSZ, CMH ADVISORS, PLLS, AND 

CMH WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-01154-2022

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ November 14, 2022 unopposed motion for a 

ten-day extension of time to file their brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER 

the brief be filed no later than November 28, 2022.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 01-4865



# 
W ILLIAM W AYNEJ OHNSON ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-01-53) Submitted: April 16, 2002 Decided: May 1, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: William Wayne Johnson pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2241(a) (West 2000). Approximately three months after entering his plea of guilty, Johnson moved to withdraw his plea, which the district court denied. Johnson appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We review a district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ubakanma , 215 F.3d421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). The defendant has the burden of demonstrating "a fair and just reason" for withdrawal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e); Ubakanma , 215 F.3d at 424. A "fair and just reason" is one that challenges the fairness of the guilty plea colloquy conducted pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. United States v. Puckett , 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995). To determine whether a defendant has shown a fair and just reason for withdrawal, a trial court should consider the six factors set out in United States v. Moore , 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). Ubakanma , 215 F.3d at 424. Although all the factors in Moore must be given appropriate weight, the key to determining whether to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is whether the Rule 11 hearing was properly conducted. Puckett , 61 F.3d at 1099. This court closely scrutinizes the Rule 11 colloquy. An adequate Rule 11 proceeding creates a strong presumption that the guilty plea is binding. United States v. Lambey , 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992). In this case, the district court conducted a thorough Rule 11inquiry. In ruling on Johnson’s motion to withdraw his plea, the district court considered each of the Moore factors and concluded thatJohnson had failed to show a fair and just reason to allow him to withdraw his plea. Our review of the record convinces us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion. 2 U NITED S TATES v. J OHNSONAccordingly, we affirm Johnson’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentionsare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. J OHNSON
42388.

#### POSS v. THE STATE.

Submitted November 7, 1966

Decided November 14, 1966.

*610
      *Hester & Hester,*for appellant.

*Albert B. Wallace, Solicitor General, Charles J. Driebe,*for appellee.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant makes two contentions as to why the judgment ordering him to serve eight years in the penitentiary should be reversed: (1) He was not notified by the Circuit Probation Officer of the terms of his probation, and (2) the original sentence did not impose any condition of conduct upon the defendant.

Assuming that the defendant was not informed as to the terms of his sentence and what was required of him “by the Circuit Probation Officer” nevertheless he was admittedly so informed by the superior court judge at the time he was originally sentenced. Section 9 of the Act of 1956 (Ga. L. 1956, pp. 27, 32; *Code Ann.*§ 27-1710), which requires the circuit probation officers to give the probationers a certified copy of the sentence is to insure that each probationer is familiar with the terms of his sentence. Therefore, where as in the present case, the defendant was admittedly familiar with the terms of his sentence the failure of the Circuit Probation Officer to furnish him with a certified copy of his sentence did not vitiate the terms of said sentence.

*611Nor is the contention that the original sentence did not impose any condition upon the defendant meritorious. The original sentence contained the same language as that approved in *Tidwell v. State,*76 Ga. App. 711 (47 SE2d 76), while the cases relied upon by the defendant contain no conditions concerning the behavior required of the defendant.

The judgment of the trial court revoking the defendant’s probation shows no reversible error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
# Official Journal C 348/9 Se

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 348 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 659 September 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 348

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 659 September 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 348/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2022/C 348/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 11 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 348/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2022/C 348/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections

11

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
# C_2021492EN.01000501.xml

| 8.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 492/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 492/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

7 December 2021

(2021/C 492/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1256 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,83 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4363 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84933 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2573 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0414 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 147,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,1900 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,465 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 365,88 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5942 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9488 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 15,3690 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5836 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4258 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7753 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6607 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5380 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 325,50 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,9612 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1671 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5205 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 175,52 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7635 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,772 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 83,7755 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,910 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,3327 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,8972 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,8780 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1256

JPY

Japanese yen

127,83

DKK

Danish krone

7,4363

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84933

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2573

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0414

ISK

Iceland króna

147,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,1900

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,465

HUF

Hungarian forint

365,88

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5942

RON

Romanian leu

4,9488

TRY

Turkish lira

15,3690

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5836

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4258

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7753

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6607

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5380

KRW

South Korean won

1 325,50

ZAR

South African rand

17,9612

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1671

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5205

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 175,52

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7635

PHP

Philippine peso

56,772

RUB

Russian rouble

83,7755

THB

Thai baht

37,910

BRL

Brazilian real

6,3327

MXN

Mexican peso

23,8972

INR

Indian rupee

84,8780

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
§ 1209.38 Hearing subpoenas. ( a ) *Issuance.* ( 1 ) Upon application of a party to the presiding officer showing relevance and reasonableness of scope of the testimony or other evidence sought, the presiding officer may issue a subpoena or a subpoena *duces tecum* requiring the attendance of a witness at the hearing or the production of documentary or physical evidence at such hearing. The application for a hearing subpoena must also contain a proposed subpoena specifying the attendance of a witness or the production of evidence from any place within the United States or its territories and possessions, or as otherwise provided by law, at the designated place where the hearing is being conducted. The party making the application shall serve a copy of the application and the proposed subpoena on every other party.
( 2 ) A party may apply for a hearing subpoena at any time before the commencement of or during a hearing. During a hearing, a party may make an application for a subpoena orally on the record before the presiding officer.
( 3 ) The presiding officer shall promptly issue any hearing subpoena applied for under this section; except that, if the presiding officer determines that the application does not set forth a valid basis for the issuance of the subpoena, or that any of its terms are unreasonable, oppressive, excessive in scope, or unduly burdensome, he may refuse to issue the subpoena or may issue the subpoena in a modified form upon any conditions consistent with subpart C of this part. Upon issuance by the presiding officer, the party making the application shall serve the subpoena on the person named in the subpoena and on each party.
( b ) *Motion to quash or modify.* ( 1 ) Any person to whom a hearing subpoena is directed or any party may file a motion to quash or modify such subpoena, accompanied by a statement of the basis for quashing or modifying the subpoena. The movant must serve the motion on each party and on the person named in the subpoena. Any party may respond to the motion within 10 days of service of the motion.
( 2 ) Any motion to quash or modify a hearing subpoena must be filed prior to the time specified in the subpoena for compliance, but no more than 10 days after the date of service of the subpoena upon the movant.
( c ) *Enforcing subpoenas.* If a subpoenaed person fails to comply with any subpoena issued pursuant to this section or any order of the presiding officer that directs compliance with all or any portion of a hearing subpoena, the subpoenaing party or any other aggrieved party may seek enforcement of the subpoena pursuant to § 1209.31. A party's right to seek court enforcement of a hearing subpoena shall in no way limit the sanctions that may be imposed by the presiding officer on a party who induces a failure to comply with subpoenas issued under this section.