alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 225
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 225 appear at 69 FR 77618, Dec. 28, 2004.

§ 225.27 Procedures for determining scope of nonbanking activities. ( a ) *Advisory opinions regarding scope of previously approved nonbanking activities* — ( 1 ) *Request for advisory opinion.* Any person may submit a request to the Board for an advisory opinion regarding the scope of any permissible nonbanking activity. The request shall be submitted in writing to the Board and shall identify the proposed parameters of the activity, or describe the service or product that will be provided, and contain an explanation supporting an interpretation regarding the scope of the permissible nonbanking activity.
( 2 ) *Response to request.* The Board shall provide an advisory opinion within 45 days of receiving a written request under this paragraph.
( b ) *Procedure for consideration of new activities* — ( 1 ) *Initiation of proceeding.* The Board may, at any time, on its own initiative or in response to a written request from any person, initiate a proceeding to determine whether any activity is so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto.
( 2 ) *Requests for determination.* Any request for a Board determination that an activity is so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto, shall be submitted to the Board in writing, and shall contain evidence that the proposed activity is so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto.
( 3 ) *Publication.* The Board shall publish in the Federal Register notice that it is considering the permissibility of a new activity and invite public comment for a period of at least 30 calendar days. In the case of a request submitted under paragraph (b) of this section, the Board may determine not to publish notice of the request if the Board determines that the requester has provided no reasonable basis for a determination that the activity is so closely related to banking, or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto, and notifies the requester of the determination.
( 4 ) *Comments and hearing requests.* Any comment and any request for a hearing regarding a proposal under this section shall comply with the provisions of § 262.3(e) of the Board's Rules of Procedure (12 CFR 262.3(e)).
# C_2013277EN.01001401.xml

| 26.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/14

---

Order of the EFTA Court of 9 November 2012

2013/C 277/11

In Case E-14/10 COSTS,

Konkurrenten.no AS against EFTA Surveillance Authority,

(Taxation of costs)

(Taxation of costs)

In Case E-14/10 COSTS, Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the taxation of costs recoverable following the judgment of the Court of 22 August 2011 in Case E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no v ESA (2011) EFTA Ct. Rep. 266 — the EFTA Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges; has made an Order of 9 November 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

The total amount of the costs to be paid by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to Konkurrenten.no AS is fixed at EUR 93 002.

---
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 09

- 00296

- CV

EX PARTE ERIC ROBERS ON

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09

- 0001170

- CV

- 272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State filed an appeal of an order by the trial court granting t he expunction

request of Eric Roberson. At the same time the State filed its appeal, the State also filed

a motion for new trial with the trial court. On November 2, 2009, the trial court granted

the State’s motion for new trial. The State now requests that its appeal be dismissed.

This appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(b).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 13, 2010

[CV06]
§ 253.5 Benchmark replacement conforming changes. ( a ) *Benchmark replacement conforming changes generally.* ( 1 ) If the Board-selected benchmark replacement becomes the benchmark replacement for a LIBOR contract pursuant to § 253.3(a) or (c), all applicable benchmark replacement conforming changes shall become an integral part of the LIBOR contract.
( 2 ) Paragraph (b) of this section establishes specific benchmark replacement conforming changes. The Board may, in its discretion, publish additional benchmark replacement conforming changes by regulation or order.
( 3 ) Solely with respect to any LIBOR contract that is not a consumer loan, a calculating person may make any additional technical, administrative, or operational changes, alterations, or modifications that, in that person's reasonable judgment, would be necessary or appropriate to permit the implementation, administration, and calculation of the Board-selected benchmark replacement under or with respect to a LIBOR contract after giving due consideration to any changes, alterations, or modifications otherwise required by the Board, without any requirement to obtain consent from any other person prior to the adoption of such benchmark replacement conforming changes.
( b ) *Specified benchmark replacement conforming changes.* ( 1 ) Any reference to a specified source for LIBOR (such as a particular newspaper, website, or screen) shall be replaced with the publication of the applicable Board-selected benchmark replacement (inclusive or exclusive of the relevant tenor spread adjustment identified in § 253.4(c)) by either the relevant benchmark administrator for the applicable Board-selected benchmark replacement or any third party authorized by the relevant benchmark administrator to publish the applicable Board-selected benchmark replacement.
( 2 ) Any reference to a particular time of day for determining LIBOR (such as 11:00 a.m. London time) shall be replaced with the standard publication time for the applicable Board-selected benchmark replacement (inclusive or exclusive of the relevant tenor spread adjustment identified in § 253.4(c)), as established by the relevant benchmark administrator.
( 3 ) Any provision of a LIBOR contract requiring use of a combination (such as an average) of LIBOR values over a period of time that spans the LIBOR replacement date shall be modified to provide that the combination shall be calculated consistent with that contractual provision using: ( i ) The applicable LIBOR for any date prior to the LIBOR replacement date; and
( ii ) The applicable Board-selected benchmark replacement rate for any date on or following the LIBOR replacement date, respectively.
( 4 ) Subject to § 253.4(a) and (b)(3)(ii), to the extent a Board-selected benchmark replacement is not available or published on a particular day indicated in the LIBOR contract as the determination date, the most recently available publication of the Board-selected benchmark replacement will apply.
June 14, 2000

Mr. William H. Millard
61 Dalvey Road
Singapore 259504

Sir,

         This letter executed by both you and Asia Web Holdings, Inc. shall
serve to set forth our understanding regarding your directorship and the options
the Company is issuing to you:

     1.  You shall serve on the Board of Directors of Asia Web Holdings, Inc. on
         a year-to-year basis for five years.

     2.  Asia Web Holdings, Inc. shall issue to you a non qualified option,
         covering 500,000 shares of Common Stock for a period of five years. The
         options shall vest at a rate of 100,000 per year, the first vesting to
         commence immediately with the signing of this agreement. The exercise
         price for the options shall be $2.00 per share.

     3.  The issuance and vesting of the options described in paragraph two
         shall be effective in all cases, save only (a) Millard resigns
         voluntary or (b) Millard is removed for cause from the Board of
         Directors prior to his serving for the full five years referred to in
         paragraph one.

     4.  The points outlined herein shall be embodied in a more formal agreement
         to be entered into between the parties.


Agreed to by:

 /S/ William H. Millard                             /S/ Michael Schaffer
-----------------------------                      -----------------------------
William H. Millard                                 Asia Web Holdings, Inc.
                                                   Michael Schaffer, CEO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,373
<PP&E>                                           4,780
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,359
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,322
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,713
<SALES>                                          8,574
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,574
<CGS>                                            5,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  25
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,880)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        62
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,905)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,942)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 21-1043

___________________________

 

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael K. Sinnawi

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of North Dakota - Western

____________

Submitted: July 27, 2021

Filed: July 30, 2021 

[Unpublished]

____________

 

Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

 

PER CURIAM.

Michael Sinnawi pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 

oxycodone. See 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). As part of his plea 

agreement, he waived his right to appeal his sentence unless, as relevant here, it 

exceeded “the upper limit of the [advisory] [S]entencing [G]uideline[s] range” 
-2- 

calculated by the district court.1

 The court gave him a 36-month sentence, which 

was within the range it calculated. In an Anders brief, Sinnawi’s counsel raises the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence and requests permission to withdraw. See 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

We review the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver de novo. See 

United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010). Upon careful review, we 

conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and that it is applicable to the issue 

raised on appeal. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) 

(en banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within 

the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the 

plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a 

miscarriage of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

82–83 (1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to 

withdraw.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the 

District of North Dakota.
<PAGE>
                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Elcom International, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-94743 and 333-90964) on Form S-3 and the registration statements (Nos.
333-00362, 333-24809, 333-34193, 333-67927, 333-81795, 333-54852, 333-61316 and
333-91488) on Form S-8 of Elcom International, Inc. of our reports dated March
7, 2003 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Elcom International,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2002, and the related
consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income (loss),
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2002, and related schedule, which reports appear in
the December 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Elcom International, Inc.

Our reports dated March 7, 2003 contain an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has an
accumulated deficit that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue
as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements and related schedule
do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that
uncertainty.


/s/ KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 7, 2003
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-212-CV

JOLLY PARTNERS, LP D/B/A	APPELLANTS

JOLLY TRUCK STOP AND F & B

AND SONS, LLC

	V.

DAS DISTRIBUTORS, INC.	APPELLEE

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

	FROM THE 97TH DISTRICT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	On July 14, 2009, we notified Appellants that we were concerned this court may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because it appeared that Appellants’ notice of appeal was not timely filed.  We stated that the appeal might be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless Appellants or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.  We have received no response to our jurisdiction letter.

	The trial court’s final judgment was signed on February 25, 2009.  Appellants then filed a motion for new trial on March 25, 2009, which extended the appellate deadline for filing a notice of appeal until May 26, 2009.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).  However, Appellants did not file their notice of appeal until July 1, 2009.

	The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and absent a timely-filed notice of appeal or extension request, we must dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997); Chilkewitz v. Winter, 25 S.W.3d 382, 383 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.).

	Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

								SUE WALKER

								JUSTICE

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  August 13, 2009
|                                                                  | Year Ended June 30 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|
|                                                                  | 2010               | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 |
| Fixed charges:                                                        |               |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense on indebtedness                                      | $16,678            | $28,247 | $32,469 | $37,853 | $42,381 |
| Amortization of debt issuance costs                                   | 946                | 1,047 | 1,088 | 1,300 | 1,487 |
| Capitalized interest                                                  | 1,376              | 1,423 | 631 | 269 | 1,866 |
| Interest expense on portion of rent expenserepresentative of interest |  882          |  922 |  902 |  760 |  1,159 |
| Total fixed charges                                                   | $19,882            | $31,639 | $35,090 | $40,182 | $46,893 |
|                                                                  |               |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings:                                                             |               |   |   |   |   |
| Net income (loss) before provision forincome taxes                    |  $125,811     |  $(51,710) |  $67,305 |  $43,838 |  $684 |
| Fixed charges per above less capitalizedinterest                      |  18,506       |  30,216 |  34,459 |  39,913 |  45,027 |
| Amortization of capitalized interest                                  | 904                | 869 | 827 | 809 | 685 |
|                                                                  |               |   |   |   |   |
| Total earnings                                                        | $145,221           | $(20,625) | $102,591 | $84,561 | $46,396 |
|                                                                  |               |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges*                                   | 7.3x               |   | 2.9x | 2.1x |   |
|                                                                  |               |   |   |   |   |
| Coverage deficiency                                                   |               | $(52,264) |   |   | $(497) |
|                                                                  |               |   |   |   |   |
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1180-1181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-238]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Base Closure and Realignment

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice is provided pursuant to section 2905(b)(7)(B)(ii) 
of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. It provides a 
partial list of military installations closing or realigning pursuant 
to the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Report. It also 
provides a corresponding listing of the Local Redevelopment Authority 
(LRA) for Umatilla Chemical Depot, Hermiston, Oregon recognized by the 
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Department of Defense Office 
of Economic Adjustment (OEA), as well as the point of contact, address, 
and telephone number for the LRA for this installation. Representatives 
of state and local governments, homeless providers, and other parties 
interested in the redevelopment of the installation

[[Page 1181]]

should contact the person or organization listed. The following 
information will also be published simultaneously in a newspaper of 
general circulation in the area of the installation. There will be 
additional Notices providing this same information about LRAs for other 
closing or realigning installations where surplus government property 
is available as those LRAs are recognized by the OEA.

DATES: Effective Date: January 12, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Office of Economic 
Adjustment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 400 Army Navy Drive, 
Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22202-4704, (703) 604-6020.

Local Redevelopment Authorities (LRAs) for Closing and Realigning 
Military Installations

Oregon

    Installation Name: Umatilla Chemical Depot.
    LRA Name: Umatilla Army Depot Reuse Authority.
    Point of Contact: Connie Caplinger, Executive Assistant to the 
Umatilla County Board of County Commissioners.
    Address: 216 SE. 4th Street, Pendleton, OR 97801.
    Phone: (541) 278-6293.

    Dated: January 5, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-238 Filed 1-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
# Official Journal C 6A/6 Ja

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 6A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 656 January 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 6A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 656 January 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2022/C 6 A/01 | Corrigendum to the Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/396/21 — Irish language (GA) Lawyer linguists (AD 7) ( OJ C 466 A, 18.11.2021 ) | 1 |

Contents

page

Corrigenda

2022/C 6 A/01

Corrigendum to the Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/396/21 — Irish language (GA) Lawyer linguists (AD 7) ( OJ C 466 A, 18.11.2021 )

( OJ C 466 A, 18.11.2021 )

1

---

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

EN
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 Form  10-KSB/A  (No.1)  of  Calypte
Biomedical Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the
"Report"),  J. Richard  George,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  and Richard Brounstein,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  each
hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   to my  knowledge,  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.


/s/ J. Richard George
------------------------
J. Richard George
President and Chief Executive Officer
April 7, 2005

/s/ Richard D. Brounstein
---------------------------
Richard D. Brounstein
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
April 7, 2005


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Calypte Biomedical Corporation and
will be retained by Calypte  Biomedical  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.