alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Uradni list C 402I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-1045 |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 402I |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Letnik 645. oktober 2021 |

ISSN 1977-1045

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 402I

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Letnik 645. oktober 2021

---

| Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informacije |
| | INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE |
| | Računsko sodišče |
| 2021/C 402 I/01 | Mnenje št. 2/2021 – o predlogu Komisije za uredbo Sveta o spremembi Uredbe (EU, Euratom) št. 609/2014, da se poveča predvidljivost za države članice in pojasnijo postopki za reševanje sporov pri dajanju tradicionalnih lastnih sredstev in sredstev iz naslovov DDV in BND na razpolago (COM(2021) 327 final z dne 25. 6. 2021, 2021/0161 (NLE)) | 1 |

Vsebina

Stran

IV   Informacije

INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE

Računsko sodišče

2021/C 402 I/01

Mnenje št. 2/2021 – o predlogu Komisije za uredbo Sveta o spremembi Uredbe (EU, Euratom) št. 609/2014, da se poveča predvidljivost za države članice in pojasnijo postopki za reševanje sporov pri dajanju tradicionalnih lastnih sredstev in sredstev iz naslovov DDV in BND na razpolago (COM(2021) 327 final z dne 25. 6. 2021, 2021/0161 (NLE))

1

---

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

IV Informacije

INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE

Računsko sodišče

| 5.10.2021 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CI 402/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2021

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CI 402/1

---

Mnenje št. 2/2021 –

o predlogu Komisije za uredbo Sveta o spremembi Uredbe (EU, Euratom) št. 609/2014, da se poveča predvidljivost za države članice in pojasnijo postopki za reševanje sporov pri dajanju tradicionalnih lastnih sredstev in sredstev iz naslovov DDV in BND na razpolago (COM(2021) 327 final z dne 25. 6. 2021, 2021/0161 (NLE))

(2021/C 402 I/01)

Evropsko računsko sodišče vas obvešča, da bo mnenje št. 2/2021 o predlogu Komisije za uredbo Sveta o spremembi Uredbe (EU, Euratom) št. 609/2014, da se poveča predvidljivost za države članice in pojasnijo postopki za reševanje sporov pri dajanju tradicionalnih lastnih sredstev in sredstev iz naslovov DDV in BND na razpolago (COM(2021) 327 final z dne 25. 6. 2021, 2021/0161 (NLE)) objavljeno 5. oktobra 2021.

Mnenje lahko preberete na spletišču Evropskega računskega sodišča ali si ga z njega prenesete od 5. oktobra 2021 ob 17. uri:

https://www.eca.europa.eu/sl/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=59435

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Neil Dyment, Chief Financial Officer, certify that

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LPA Holding Corp. and La
Petite Academy, Inc.;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: September 25, 2003

By /s/ Neil P. Dyment
  ---------------------------
    Neil P. Dyment
    Chief Financial Officer
#### Joseph Rimoldo, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

H. A. Robinson, for appellant.

Wendel *&*Robeson, for respondent.

*747
      *Per Curiam.*

The plaintiff’s evidence tended to show negligence on the part of the defendant.

■Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Scott and Dugbo, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Daniel Lon GRAHAM *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-61

495 S.W. 2d 864

Opinion delivered June 25, 1973

*742
      *John Lineberger*and *John Barry Baker,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Charles A. Banks,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Frank Holt, Justice.

In *Graham*v. *State,*253 Ark. 462, 486 S.W. 2d 678 (1972), we were “obliged to reduce appellant’s sentence” for his first degree murder conviction “from death to life , imprisonment as being the next highest available penalty.” We, also, remanded the case to the trial court for consideration as to whether such life sentence should run concurrently or consecutively with appellant’s prior life sentence “[s]ince the commitment to be issued by the trial court may affect appellant’s status as a prisoner. . . .” On this appeal, appellant contends the lower court erred in directing that his life sentences be served consecutively. We cannot agree.

The trial court considered, and rightfully so, the effect the consecutive sentences could have upon “appellant’s status as a prisoner.” Further, the question of whether two separate sentences should run concurrently or consecutively lies solely within the province of the trial court. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2312 (1971 Supp.); *Hayes*v. *State,*169 Ark. 883, 277 S.W. 36 (1925); *Higgins*v. *State,*235 Ark. 153, 357 S.W. 2d 449 (1962).

Neither can we agree with appellant’s subordinate contention that the trial court erred in failing to direct that appellant’s money ($358) taken from him upon his arrest be returned. In the circumstances, we cannot say that the method employed by the trial court in directing the $358 be paid into the county treasury, in partial satisfaction of the costs (approximately $5,000) of appellant’s trial is prejudicial to appellant since the method he urges the court should have followed would achieve the same result.

Affirmed.
§ 7.4002 National bank charges. ( a ) *Authority to impose charges and fees.* A national bank may charge its customers non-interest charges and fees, including deposit account service charges.
( b ) *Considerations.* ( 1 ) All charges and fees should be arrived at by each bank on a competitive basis and not on the basis of any agreement, arrangement, undertaking, understanding, or discussion with other banks or their officers.
( 2 ) The establishment of non-interest charges and fees, their amounts, and the method of calculating them are business decisions to be made by each bank, in its discretion, according to sound banking judgment and safe and sound banking principles. A national bank establishes non-interest charges and fees in accordance with safe and sound banking principles if the bank employs a decision-making process through which it considers the following factors, among others: ( i ) The cost incurred by the bank in providing the service;
( ii ) The deterrence of misuse by customers of banking services;
( iii ) The enhancement of the competitive position of the bank in accordance with the bank's business plan and marketing strategy; and
( iv ) The maintenance of the safety and soundness of the institution.
( c ) *Interest.* Charges and fees that are “interest” within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. 85 are governed by § 7.4001 and not by this section.
( d ) *State law.* The OCC applies preemption principles derived from the United States Constitution, as interpreted through judicial precedent, when determining whether State laws apply that purport to limit or prohibit charges and fees described in this section.
( e ) *National bank as fiduciary.* This section does not apply to charges imposed by a national bank in its capacity as a fiduciary, which are governed by 12 CFR part 9.
[66 FR 34791, July 2, 2001]
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22896-2 Filed:11/18/22 Entered:11/21/22 16:27

Envelope Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Theragenics Corporation, (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 1, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Francis J. Tarallo,
      Chief Financial Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 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
                as of the dates and for the periods referred to in the
                Report.








Date: May
                9, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Francis
                J. TaralloFrancis
                J. TaralloChief
                Financial Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Theragenics Corporation and will be retained by Theragenics Corporation and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.
**Title:****Space Photovoltaic Research andTechnology [microform]: SPRAT
 
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
 
SuDocNumber:NAS 1.55:
ItemNumber:0830-H-10 (MF)
CGPSystem Number:000522931
 
March4, 2020**
§ 614.4361 Transition. ( a ) A loan (not including a commitment) made or attributed to a borrower prior to the effective date of this subpart, which does not comply with the limits contained in this subpart, will not be considered a violation of the lending and leasing limits during the existing contract terms of such loans. A new loan must conform with the rules set forth in this subpart. A new loan includes but is not limited to: ( 1 ) Funds advanced in excess of existing commitment;
( 2 ) A different borrower is substituted for a borrower who is subsequently released; or
( 3 ) An additional person becomes an obligor on the loan.
( b ) A commitment made prior to the effective date of these regulations which exceeds the lending and leasing limit may be funded to the full extent of the legal commitment. Any advances that exceed the lending and leasing limit are subject to the provisions prescribed in § 614.4360.
[58 FR 40321, July 28, 1993. Redesignated and amended at 64 FR 34517, 34518, June 28, 1999]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7888

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DWIGHT LAMONT HUNTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CR-94-111-MU; CA-00-71-3-2-MU)

Submitted: June 25, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwight Lamont Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr.,

United States Attorney, Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United

States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dwight Lamont Hunter appeals from the district court’s

denial of his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief

from the district court’s prior judgment denying his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence. An appeal may not be

taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a

circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability.

See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir. 2004); 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(2000). This court will not issue a certificate of

appealability as to claims denied by a district court on procedural

grounds unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists

of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252

F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000)). 

We have reviewed the record and determine that Hunter has

not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336 (2003). 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices 

# Order

April 23, 2014

148118 & (109)

EDWIN A. NICHOLS, Plaintiff

- Appellee/ Cross

- Appellant,

v SC: 148118 COA: 303783 WCAC: 08

- 000024, 08

- 000050 HOWMET CORPORATION and PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY/ CIGNA, Defendants

- Appellants/ Cross

- Appellees, and

CORDANT TECHNOLOGIES and MICHIGAN PROPERTY & CASUALTY ASSOCIATION, Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross

appellant are considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, w e VACATE Part III, Section D of the Court of Appeals opinion and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals. On remand, the Court of Appeals shall address the issue of whether there should be an allocation of liability for worker’s compensation wage loss benefits, such that defendant Pacific Employers Insurance Company, as the insurer at the time of the plaintiff’s cervical injuries, is only obligated to pay differential wage loss benefits beyond those defendant American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance (no w substituted by the Michigan Property & Casualty Association), as the insurer at the time of the plaintiff’s low back injury, must pay for the plaintiff’s wage loss due to that later injury. MCL 418.301(5)(e), as constituted at the time applicable to

thi s case, did not allocate liability between insurance carriers for the payment of wage loss benefits. And, contrary to the determination of the Court of Appeals, defendant Pacific Employers did raise this issue in response to the appeals of the plaintiff a ndI, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 23, 2014

t0416 2

Clerk American Manufacturers at the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC). The WCAC implicitly rejected Pacific Employers’ argument by assigning full wage loss liability to that insurer. As the appellee at the WCAC, Pacific Employers adequately raised the issue for the purpose of subsequent Court of Appeals review.

Consideration of thi s issue is necessary for a proper determination of the case, the issue presenting a question of law where all facts necessary for its resolution have been presented. In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal and the application for

leave to appeal as cross

- appellant are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

I, Anita Britt, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Annual Report of Perry Ellis International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d))and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Perry Ellis International, Inc.



|               |  |                              
|-------------- |  | -----------------------------
|April 13, 2011
|               | 
|By:            |  | /s/ Anita Britt              
|Name:          |  | Anita Britt                  
|Title:         |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|               |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
§ 611.100 Definitions. The following definitions apply for the purpose of this part: ( a ) *Business day* means a day the institution is open for business, excluding the legal public holidays identified in 5 U.S.C. 6103(a).
( b ) *FCA* means the Farm Credit Administration.
( c ) *Mail ballot* means a ballot cast by regular or electronic mail.
( d ) *Online meeting* means a meeting that is conducted over the Internet through the use of mediating technologies, such as online services, computer hardware and software, etc., where technology is used to generate objects and environments that are presented to users through a number of senses (e.g., vision and hearing). The mediating technologies allow people or objects at remote locations to appear locally present or at least allow them to be treated that way during the course of the meeting.
( e ) *Online meeting space* means an online environment where Farm Credit institutions can hold stockholder meetings that allow stockholders to communicate, collaborate, and share information. Any stockholder with the necessary technology requirements and access (e.g., password-protected meetings) must be allowed to connect to his or her institution's online meeting space.
( f ) *Regional election* means the apportionment of a Farm Credit institution's territory into regions in which a director or directors from a region are elected only by those voting stockholders who reside or conduct agricultural or aquatic operations in that same region.
( g ) *Stockholder-association* means an association within a Farm Credit bank district holding voting stock in that bank.
( h ) *Stockholder-elected director* means a director who is elected by the majority vote of the voting stockholders voting to serve as a member of a Farm Credit institution's board of directors.
( i ) Voting record date or record date means the official date set by a Farm Credit institution whereby a stockholder must own voting stock in that institution in order to cast a vote.
( j ) Voting record date list or record date list means the list of names, addresses, and classes of stock held by stockholders in the Farm Credit institution who are eligible to vote as of a specific voting record date.
[75 FR 18740, Apr. 12, 2010, as amended at 77 FR 60595, Oct. 3, 2012; 79 FR 17856, Mar. 31, 2014; 80 FR 51116, Aug. 24, 2015]
§ 622.2 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *Act* means the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended. 12 U.S.C. 2001, *et seq.*
( b ) *FCA* means the Farm Credit Administration.
( c ) *Board* means the Farm Credit Administration Board.
( d ) The terms *institution in the System, System institution* and *institution* mean all institutions enumerated in section 1.2 of the Act, any institution chartered pursuant to or established by the Act, except for the Farm Credit System Assistance Board and the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, and any service corporation chartered under the Act.
( e ) *Party* means the FCA or a person or institution named as a party in any notice that commences a proceeding, or any person or institution who is admitted as a party or who has filed a written request and is entitled as of right to be a party.
( f ) *Presiding officer* means an administrative law judge or any FCA employee or other person designated by the Board to conduct a hearing.
( g ) *Ex parte communication* means an oral or written communication not on the record with respect to which reasonable prior notice to all parties is not given. It does not include requests for status reports.
[51 FR 21139, June 11, 1986, as amended at 53 FR 27284, July 19, 1988; 78 FR 31835, May 28, 2013]
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2013-0671; Dir ID 2013-NM-124-AD