alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R.47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 91-8586

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MODESTO SERNA SANCHEZ, JR.,

also known as Number 6,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(W-90-CR-121)

 

January 28, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Modesto Serna Sanchez, Jr. appeals from the district court’s

denial of his request for the production of notes prepared by

federal agents who debriefed several plea-bargaining codefendants.

Sanchez argues that the district court erred by determining that

the debriefing notes prepared by the government agents contained
2

neither Brady nor Jencks Act material. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Any error committed by the district

court in determining that the debriefing notes were not Jencks Act

material is harmless. See United States v. Hodgkiss, 116 F.3d 116,

118 (5th Cir. 1997). Further, Sanchez has failed to show that the

notes contained any material favorable to him under Brady.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 9, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 07-40087

Summary Calendar

_____________________

SETH T. DYRCZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GRAHAM BROTHERS OF LONGVIEW, LLC

d/b/a GRAHAM CENTRAL STATION, OF

LONGVIEW; LONGVIEW CLUB ENTERPRISES,

INC. d/b/a GRAND CENTRAL STATION,

LONGVIEW; LONGVIEW ENTERPRISES LTD,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(2:05-CV-476)

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Seth T. Dyrcz appeals from the take-nothing

judgment as a matter of law entered by the district court against Dyrcz

following a personal injury jury trial in which Dyrcz was awarded $40,724.60
2

for physical impairment and $10,000 for physical pain and mental anguish,

reduced by 40% for his contributory negligence. The basis for the post-verdict

take-nothing judgment was a Release and Assumption of Risk executed by

Dyrcz immediately prior to a “Dodge Ball Contest,” expressly releasing,

indemnifying, and holding harmless Graham Central Station Longview, its

partners, agents, and employees, from any responsibility or liability for

personal injury incurred in participating in the dodge ball contest in question.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal in this case, and the

law and evidence pertaining to the validity and extent of coverage of the

Release and Assumption of Risk signed by Dyrcz, as well as his testimony and

stipulation regarding the circumstances of the execution of that instrument

and his knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of its contents and

purposes. Based on this review, we are convinced that the district court

correctly granted the motion of Defendant Longview Enterprises, Ltd. for a

judgment as a matter of law, for the reasons cogently set forth in the court’s

Memorandum Order signed November 13, 2006.

AFFIRMED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1

REPORT ON SCHEDULE
AND
CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Advanced Fibre Communications, Inc.:

The audits referred to in our report
dated February 23, 2004, included the
related financial statement schedule as of December 31, 2003 and for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Advanced Fibre Communications, Inc. This
financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Companys management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement
schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement
schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-44645, 333-15651 and 333-39888) on Form S-8 of Advanced Fibre
Communications, Inc. of our reports dated February 23, 2004, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Advanced Fibre Communications, Inc. as of
December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of operations,
stockholders equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, and the related
schedule, which reports are incorporated by reference in the December 31, 2003
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Advanced Fibre Communications, Inc.

As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, in 2001 the
Company changed its method of accounting for derivative financial instruments
upon implementation of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No.
133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended
by SFAS No. 138, Accounting for Certain Derivative Instruments and Certain
Hedging Activities. In 2001, the Company also adopted SFAS No. 141, Business
Combinations, and certain provisions of SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other
Intangible Assets, as required, for the goodwill and intangible assets
resulting from business combinations consummated after June 30, 2001. In 2002,
the Company fully adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 142, as required, for
goodwill and intangible assets resulting from business combinations consummated
after June 30, 2001.

KPMG LLP

San Francisco, California
March 8, 2004

1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6927

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RASHEEN WESTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:15-cr-00087-CMC-1; 

3:19-cv-00746-CMC)

Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rasheen Weston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rasheen Weston seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

On direct appeal from Weston’s underlying criminal judgment, this court rejected 

his claims challenging the validity of three of his predicate convictions under the Armed 

Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012). United States v. Weston, 681 F. App’x 

235, 236-38 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 15-4744). In his § 2255 motion, Weston rehashed the 

same arguments that this court fully considered on direct appeal. Absent a “change in the 

law that warrants . . . reconsideration,” United States v. Roane, 378 F.3d 382, 396 n.7 (4th 

Cir. 2004), a prisoner typically “cannot circumvent a proper ruling on direct appeal by 

re-raising the same challenge in a § 2255 motion,” United States v. Dyess, 730 F.3d 354, 

360 (4th Cir. 2013) (ellipsis and internal quotation marks omitted). Because Weston 
3

identifies no such change in the law, we conclude that the district court’s decision not to 

revisit these previously adjudicated claims is not debatable.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

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

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

process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES v. ST. LOUIS, SAN FRANCISCO & TEXAS RY. CO. UNITED STATES v. WABASH RY. CO.

[59 C. Cls. 975, 322; 270 U. S. 1]

Judgments were rendered against the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgments were *affirmed,*the Supreme Court deciding :

1. Transportation act, 1920, amending paragraph 3, section 16, of the interstate commerce act, provides: “All actions at law by carriers subject to this act for recovery of their charges, or any part thereof, shall be begun within three years from *749the time the cause of action accrues and not after.” *Meld*not applicable retroactively to causes of action existing at the date of the transportation act.

2. The act of June 7, 1924, which further amended paragraph 3, section 16, of the interstate commerce act, among other things by adding that its provisions “ shall extend to and embrace cases in which the cause of action has heretofore accrued as well as cases in which the cause of action may hereafter accrue,” was not intended to defeat claims on which suits duly brought were then pending, or in which judgment had already been entered.

Mr. Justice Brandeis

delivered tbe opinion of the Supreme Court January 18, 1926.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-50852

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE OSCAR TRUJILLO-RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-99-CR-348-1

--------------------

June 1, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose

Oscar Trujillo-Ramirez has moved for leave to withdraw and has

filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Trujillo has received a copy of counsel’s motion and

brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of

the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. See id. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
# C_2021350EN.01000301.xml

| 31.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

30 August 2021

(2021/C 350/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1801 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,66 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4361 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85748 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,1813 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0798 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 149,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,2395 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,566 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 348,30 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5678 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9343 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 9,8909 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6167 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4867 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,1891 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6844 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5881 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 375,03 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,2578 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6347 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4935 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 916,81 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9057 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,786 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 86,7119 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,271 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,1529 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,8273 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 86,5035 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1801

JPY

Japanese yen

129,66

DKK

Danish krone

7,4361

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85748

SEK

Swedish krona

10,1813

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0798

ISK

Iceland króna

149,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,2395

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,566

HUF

Hungarian forint

348,30

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5678

RON

Romanian leu

4,9343

TRY

Turkish lira

9,8909

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6167

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4867

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,1891

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6844

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5881

KRW

South Korean won

1 375,03

ZAR

South African rand

17,2578

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6347

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4935

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 916,81

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9057

PHP

Philippine peso

58,786

RUB

Russian rouble

86,7119

THB

Thai baht

38,271

BRL

Brazilian real

6,1529

MXN

Mexican peso

23,8273

INR

Indian rupee

86,5035

---

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

---
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


CA2022111EN.01001201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 8.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 111/12 |

---

Notice amending the notice of open competition – EPSO/AD/392/21 – Administrators (AD 7) in the field of health and food safety – 1. Policymaking and law-making in the field of health – 2. Policymaking and law-making in the field of food safety – 3. Auditing, inspection and evaluation in the field of health and food safety

(
[Official Journal of the European Union C 193 A of 20 May 2021](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2021_193_A_TOC)
)

(2022/C 111 A/10)

On page 7, Section 5 ‘Assessment centre’ should read:

‘5)   
Assessment centre

A maximum of 3 times
 the number of successful candidates sought for each field will be invited to this phase. If you meet the eligibility requirements according to the data in your online application and if you scored one of the
highest overall marks
 for the selection based on qualifications, you will be invited to attend an assessment centre (online or in-person), over one or several days, in your
language 2
. Please note that the case study may be organised either in one of EPSO’s accredited test centres or remotely. Further details and instructions will be included in your invitation letter.

If the computer-based MCQ tests described in point 2 were
not organised upfront
, you will sit them during the assessment centre phase either in one of EPSO’s accredited centres or remotely. The marks obtained will not be added to the marks of the other assessment centre tests in the calculation of your total score.

Unless instructed otherwise, you will have to upload scanned copies of your supporting documents to your EPSO account. Further details and instructions will be included in your invitation letter.

Eight general competencies, as well as the field-related competencies required for each field, will be tested at the assessment centre through
three tests
 as described in the following two matrices:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Competency | Tests |
| | | | | --- | --- | | 1. | Analysis and problem-solving | | Case study |
| | | | | --- | --- | | 2. | Communication | | Case study |
| | | | | --- | --- | | 3. | Delivering quality and results | | Case study |
| | | | | --- | --- | | 4. | Learning and development | | Situational competency-based interview |
| | | | | --- | --- | | 5. | Prioritising and organising | | Case study |
| | | | | --- | --- | | 6. | Resilience | | Situational competency-based interview |
| | | | | --- | --- | | 7. | Working with others | | Situational competency-based interview |
| | | | | --- | --- | | 8. | Leadership | | Situational competency-based interview |

Each general competency will be marked out of 10. There is no pass mark per competency. However, you must reach a pass mark of at least 40/80 in total.

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Competency | Test |
| Field-related competencies | Field-related interview |

Pass mark:
 50/100’

---
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  DHB  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, David H. Brooks, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



Dated:  March 11, 2005              By: /s/ DAVID H. BROOKS
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                            David H. Brooks
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# C_2022320EN.01000101.xml

| 24.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

23 August 2022

(2022/C 320/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 0,9927 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,34 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4374 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84343 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6063 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9602 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 140,10 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7438 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,658 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 410,55 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7788 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8839 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 17,9830 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4437 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2928 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 7,7900 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6071 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,3860 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 332,10 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,9568 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,7952 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5128 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 743,28 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4557 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,661 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,856 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,0984 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,9152 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,2805 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

0,9927

JPY

Japanese yen

136,34

DKK

Danish krone

7,4374

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84343

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6063

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9602

ISK

Iceland króna

140,10

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7438

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,658

HUF

Hungarian forint

410,55

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7788

RON

Romanian leu

4,8839

TRY

Turkish lira

17,9830

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4437

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2928

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

7,7900

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6071

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,3860

KRW

South Korean won

1 332,10

ZAR

South African rand

16,9568

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,7952

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5128

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 743,28

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4557

PHP

Philippine peso

55,661

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

35,856

BRL

Brazilian real

5,0984

MXN

Mexican peso

19,9152

INR

Indian rupee

79,2805

---

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

---
HomeReportsBureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs...Report to Congress on Anti-Kleptocracy and Human Rights Visa Restrictions

# 					Report to Congress on Anti-Kleptocracy and Human Rights Visa Restrictions			

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

							Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, Congress provides that officials of foreign governments and their immediate family members are ineligible for entry into the United States when the Secretary of State has credible information that the foreign official has been involved, directly or indirectly, with significant corruption and/or a gross violation of human rights.						

 In this section										/

													To View the Public Listings see the Drop Down Menu to the Right											

            -  To View the Public Listings see the Drop Down Menu to the Right   

							To View the Public Listings see the Drop Down Menu to the Right					

Tags

7031(c)Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

## View report by:

### On This Page

                -  To View the Public Listings see the Drop Down Menu to the Right   

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
GLNG 12/31/2014- Ex 4.4






Exhibit 4.4
Registration No. 30506





                  BERMUDA


TAX ASSURANCE


WHEREAS the Minister of Finance ("the Minister"), pursuant to section 2 of the Exempted Undertakings Tax Protection Act 1966 ,  is authorised to enter into an arrangement with any exempted undertaking upon application.


WHEREAS such undertakings may be given an assurance that in the  event  of  there being enacted in  Bermuda  any  legislation  imposing  tax computed  on  profits  or income or computed on any capital asset, gain or appreciation , or any tax in the nature of estate duty or inheritance tax, then the imposition of any tax described herein shall not be applicable to such undertakings or to any of its operations or the shares, debentures or other obligations of the said undertakings.


THEREFORE the Minister, upon application , hereby grants the aforementioned assurance to:


Golar LNG Limited
("the Undertaking")


PROVIDED THAT this assurance shall not be construed so as to:


		
	(i)
	prevent the application of any such tax or duty to such persons as are ordinarily resident


in these Islands; and


		
	(ii)
	prevent the application of any tax payable in accordance with the provisions of the


Land  Tax Act  1967 or otherwise payable in relation to the l and leased to the
Undertaking.


THIS TAX ASSURANCE shall be in effect until the 31st day of March 2035.




Given under my hand this
23rd day of May 2011


/s/ Maria Boodram


Acting Registrar of Companies
for MINISTER OF FINANCE