alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

----

III Teatised

Euroopa Ravimihindamisamet

----

EUROOPA RAVIMIHINDAMISAMET LONDONIS VAJAB UUSI TÖÖTAJAID

(2004/C 193 A/01)

Euroopa Ravimihindamisagentuur (EMEA) vastutab inimtervishoiuks kasutatavate ja veterinaarravimite hindamise ja järelevalve koordineerimise eest Euroopa Liidus (vt nõukogu 22. juuli 1993. aasta määrus (EMÜ) nr 2309/93, Euroopa Ühenduste Teataja L 214, 24. august 1993, ja nõukogu 31. märtsi 2004. aasta määrus (EÜ) nr 726/2004, Euroopa Liidu Teataja L 136, 30. aprill 2004). EMEA asutati 1995. aasta jaanuaris. Agentuur teeb tihedat koostööd Euroopa Komisjoni, 25 liikmesriigi, EMP riikide ning paljude muude riigi- ja erasektori huvirühmadega.

Täpsemat teavet EMEA ja tema tegevuse kohta saate Internetist, meie koduleht asub aadressil http://www.emea.eu.int.

Euroopa Ravimiamet korraldab konkursi, et koostada reservnimekiri järgmiste ametikohtade täitmiseks:

Väljavalitud kandidaadid kantakse reservnimekirja ning olenevalt eelarve võimalustest võidakse neile pakkuda viieaastast pikendatavat lepingut vastavalt Euroopa Ühenduste muude teenistujate teenistustingimustele (Euroopa Ühenduste Teataja L 56, 4. märts 1968). (1)

Töökoht asub Londonis.

Kandidaatidel peab olema Euroopa Liidu liikmesriigi või Islandi, Norra või Liechtensteini kodakondsus, tingimusel et nad on täieõiguslikud kodanikud. 

Tingimuste täieliku loetelu, ametikirjelduse ning nõutava avalduse vormi leiate EMEA kodulehe aadressilt http://www.emea.eu.int/. Avaldus tuleb nõuetekohaselt allkirjastada ja dateerida ning saata koos kõigi tõendavate dokumentidega hiljemalt 20. septembriks 2004 (postmargi kuupäev) järgmisele aadressile:EMEA — Head of Personnel, 7 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London E14 4HB, United Kingdom (tel. (44-207) 418 84 00, faks (44-207) 418 84 16).

----

(1)  Nõukogu on vastu võtnud uued personalieeskirjad, mis jõustusid 1. mail 2004. Nendes eeskirjades on sätestatud uus karjääristruktuur. Seega võetakse edukad kandidaadid tööle uute personalieeskirjade alusel eelkõige XIII lisa 2. jao artiklis 12 sätestatud korras (vt IntraCommi veebilehte: http://www.europa.eu.int).

----

Euroopa Rassismi ja Ksenofoobia Järelevalvekeskus

----

KONKURSI TEADE ACER-B-2004

(2004/C 193 A/02)

Euroopa Rassismi ja Ksenofoobia Järelevalvekeskus (EUMC) otsib kandidaate vabade ametikohtade täitmiseks. Üksikasjalik informatsioon vabade ametikohtade, keskuse ülesannete ning taotluste vormistamise kohta avaldatakse EUMC veebilehel järgmisel aadressil: http://eumc.eu.int.

----
§ 1985.102 Obligations and prohibited acts. ( a ) No covered person or service provider may terminate or in any other way retaliate against, or cause to be terminated or retaliated against, including, but not limited to, intimidating, threatening, restraining, coercing, blacklisting or disciplining, any covered employee or any authorized representative of covered employees because such employee or representative, whether at the employee's initiative or in the ordinary course of the employee's duties (or any person acting pursuant to a request of the employee), engaged in any of the activities specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
( b ) A covered employee or authorized representative is protected against retaliation (as described in paragraph (a) of this section) by a covered person or service provider because he or she: ( 1 ) Provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide or cause to be provided to the employer, the Bureau, or any other State, local, or Federal, government authority or law enforcement agency, information relating to any violation of, or any act or omission that the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of, any provision of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1955 (July 21, 2010), or any other provision of law that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Bureau, or any rule, order, standard, or prohibition prescribed by the Bureau;
( 2 ) Testified or will testify in any proceeding resulting from the administration or enforcement of any provision of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1955 (July 21, 2010), or any other provision of law that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Bureau, or any rule, order, standard, or prohibition prescribed by the Bureau;
( 3 ) Filed, instituted, or caused to be filed or instituted any proceeding under any Federal consumer financial law; or
( 4 ) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, practice, or assigned task that the employee (or other such person) reasonably believed to be in violation of any law, rule, order, standard, or prohibition subject to the jurisdiction of, or enforceable by, the Bureau.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3363

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Duane Russell Conroy, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: April 20, 2012

Filed: June 4, 2012

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

While conducting surveillance on a Boone, Iowa, residence associated with

methamphetamine distribution, a police officer observed a vehicle leave the

residence. The driver, Duane Russell Conroy, threw a black bag out the window. 

The bag contained two ounces of meth and drug paraphernalia. Conroy pled guilty

to possessing meth with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and (b)(1)(B). Conroy qualified as a career offender; the advisory sentencing range
was 262 to 327 months. Applying a 35 percent variance, the district court sentenced 1

Conroy to 170 months’ imprisonment. He appeals the sentence for procedural error

and substantive unreasonableness. This court affirms.

Any procedural error isreviewed for plain error because Conroy did not object

at sentencing. United States v. Townsend, 618 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir. 2010)

(requiring an obvious legal error affecting both a party’s substantial rights and the

fairness, integrity, or reputation of the judicial proceedings). Conroy says the district

court did not properly account for his mental health or addiction history. However,

the court explicitly noted those considerations and acknowledged reading Conroy’s

sentencing memorandum. Further, the court did not commit an obvious legal error

when it mistakenly said Conroy had “five good chances in drug court.” Conroy had

five prior drug convictions. 

Conroy argues his sentence is greater than necessary because the district court

failed to adequately weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3533(a) factors. A sentence’s substantive

reasonableness is reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). A sentence within

the advisory guidelines is presumed reasonable. United States v. Underwood, 639

F.3d 1111, 1114 (8th Cir. 2011). It is “nearly inconceivable” for the court to abuse

its discretion when imposing a sentence below the advisory range. United States v.

Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009). The district court did not abuse its

discretion. It carefully accounted for Conroy’s criminal history and mental health

situation, the need for deterrence, and other available sentencing options. See United

States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009) (granting “wide latitude” to the

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern 1

District of Iowa.

-2-
court in its evaluation). Moreover, the court correctly categorized Conroy as a career

offender. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). 

The district court did not commit plain error or impose a substantively

unreasonable sentence.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

_________________________________

-3-
**Exhibit 32**

** **

CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Terry G. Roussel andGary W. Nielson, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Cornerstone Realty Fund,LLC on Form 10-Q for the six-month period ended June 30, 2005 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC.

 
|                       | /s/ TERRY G. ROUSSEL                                           |   |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: August 12, 2005 | Terry G. Roussel                                               |
|                       | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of       |
|                       | Cornerstone Ventures, Inc., Managing Member of            |
|                       | Cornerstone Industrial Properties, LLC, the Managing Member of |
|                       | Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC                                   |
|                       |                                                           |
|                       |                                                           |
|                       | /s/ GARY W. NIELSON                                            |   |
| Date: August 12, 2005 | Gary W. Nielson                                                |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of       |
|                       | Cornerstone Ventures, Inc., Managing Member of            |
|                       | Cornerstone Industrial Properties, LLC, the Managing Member of |
|                       | Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC                                   |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, Respondent, *v.*James J. Sexton et al., Constituting the Board of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants.

Argued November 23, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.

*463
      *Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (William C. Chanler*and *William S. Gaud, Jr.,*of counsel), for appellants.

*John W. Davis, Tom Garrett, James A. Sweet*and *Edward C. McLean*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

' Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### Mary P. HALL, Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. Ferris E. HALL, Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

Nos. 11111, 11112.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued April 5, 1967.

Decided April 25, 1967.

Thos. B. Butler, Spartanburg, S. C., for appellant.

Christ Christ, Spartanburg, S. C., for appellees.

Before BOREMAN, BRYAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs recovered judgments in the United States District Court against Robert Fleming, defendant’s insured, for injuries suffered by them in an automobile accident. Plaintiffs then brought these actions against defendant seeking recovery under the liability insurance policy issued to Fleming. The district court, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact and the only ques*372tion being one of law, granted summary judgment for plaintiffs.

We affirm for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court.1

Affirmed.

1

. Hall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 268 F.Supp. 995 (D.S.C. Oct. 26,1966).
#### Florence U. Breslav, on Behalf of Herself and Others, Respondent, *v.*New York and Queens Electric Light and Power Company et al., Appellants.

Argued March 2, 1937;

decided March 16, 1937.

*596
      *Joseph M. Proskauer, Robert E. Coulson, Thomas H. Beardsley, J. Alvin Van Bergh*and *Albert L. Solodar*for appellants.

*Arthur V. McDermott, Thomas Gregory, Mary H. Donlon*and *James Bundy Burke*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; and question certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 1 0

- 5 1 0 0 4 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v

.

T O D D R I C K S

,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o

. 1 : 0 6

- C R

- 2 0 6

- 1

B e f o r e J O L L Y

, G A R Z A a n d S T E W A R T

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M : *

T o d d R i c k s i s s e r v i n g a 3 0 0

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e f o r t h r e e d r u g a n d f

i r e a r m

c r i m e s

. H e h a s m o v e d t h i s c o u r t f o r l e a v e t o a p p e a l i n f o r m a p a u p e r i s a n d f o r

a p p o i n t m e n t o f c o u n s e l a s h e s e e k s t o a p p e a l t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f t w o

m o t i o n s

. I n o n e m o t i o n , R i c k s c o n t e n d e d t h a t a h u n g j u r y i n a 2 0 0 7 m i s t r i a l

e q u a t e d t o a n a c q u i t t a l a n d t h a t h e w a s e n t i t l e d t o a n u n c p r o t u n c o r d e r o f

a c q u i t t a l

. I n t h e o t h e r m o t i o n , R i c k s s o u g h t a f o r m a l w r i t t e n r u l i n g t h a t h i s

m o t i o n f

o r a c q u i t t a l d u r i n g t h e 2 0 0 7 m i s t r i a l h a d b e e n d e n i e d

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D
June 16 , 20 11

Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5

, the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not *
be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-51004 Document: 00511510656 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2011N o

. 1 0

- 5 1 0 0 4

T h e m o t i o n s f

i l e d b y R i c k s i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w e r e m e a n i n g l e s s ,

u n a u t h o r i z e d

, a n d w i t h o u t a n y j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a s i s

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. E a r l y ,

2 7 F

. 3 d 1 4 0

, 1 4 2 ( 5 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 4 ) ( a d d r e s s i n g “ a m e a n i n g l e s s , u n a u t h o r i z e d

m o t i o n ” t h a t l a c k e d a n y j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a s i s )

. R i c k s h a s f a i l e d t o s h o w t h a t h i s

a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f t h e s e f r i v o l o u s m o t i o n s i n v o l v e s “ l e g a l p o i n t s a r g u a b l e

o n t h e i r m e r i t s ( a n d t h e r e f o r e n o t f r i v o l o u s )

. ” H o w a r d v

. K i n g , 7 0 7 F

. 2 d 2 1 5

, 2 2 0

( 5 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 3 ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d )

. T h e a p p e a l i s D I S M I S S E D

a s f r i v o l o u s , a n d R i c k s ’ s m o t i o n s a r e D E N I E D

. S e e B a u g h v

. T a y l o r , 1 1 7 F

. 3 d

1 9 7

, 2 0 2 & n

. 2 4 ( 5 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 7 ) ; 5 T H C I R

. R U L E 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 10-51004 Document: 00511510656 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2011
AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                       LINCOLN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                              LOUiSVILLE, KENTUCKY


         At a duly called special meeting of the shareholders of Lincoln
International Corporation on March 31, 1997 at 8:00 A.M., which was adjourned
and reconvened on April 8, 1997 at 10:30 A.M., which was adjourned and
reconvened on April 30, 1997 at 8:00 A.M. at the offices of Lincoln
International Corporation, Louisville, Kentucky at which meeting there were
91,923 voting shares and 290,095 non-votng shares present in person or by proxy
and upon the unaninous vote of all shares represented it was resolved that the
articles of Incorporation of Lincoln International Corporation be amended so the
Article (e) should read as follows:

                                  ARTICLE (e)

         The corporation may issue 3,000,000 shares of capital stock consisting
of 3,000,000 shares of class A common voting stock, all of no par value.

         WITNESS our hand as President and Secretary of Lincoln International
Corporation this 10th day of June 1997.



                                                /s/ THURMAN L. SISNEY
                                                _________________________
                                                President


                                                /s/ RICHARD A. DOLIN
                                                _________________________
                                                Secretary

<PAGE>


STATE OF KENTUCKY)

                   SCT.

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON)

         I, Barbara Simpson, Notary Public within and for the state and County
aforesaid, do certify that on this date the foregoing Amendment to Articles of
Incorporation were produced to me in my County by Thurman L. Sisney, President,
and Richard A. Dolin, Secretary of Lincoln International Corporation and was by
them signed, acknowledged and delivered as and for their act and deed and as the
act and deed of Lincoln International Corporation.

                                NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE AT LARGE, KY
                                MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 2, 2000
         My commission expires  __________________________________

         Witness my hand this 10th day of June 1997.


                                        /s/BARBARA A. SIMPSON
                                        ______________________________________
                                        Notary Public, Kentucky State At Large
#### § 2205.149 Program accessibility: discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 2205.150, no qualified individual with a disability shall, because the agency's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the agency.
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

#### § 20.57 Accrual of interest.

Interest shall accrue from the date on which notice of the debt and the interest requirements is first mailed or hand-delivered to the debtor, using the most current address that is available to the agency.
Exhibit 32.2

    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 quarterly report of First Coastal Bancshares (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Deborah
A. Marsten, CFO of the Company, 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.

                                                         /s/ Deborah A. Marsten
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Deborah A. Marsten
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                         August 14, 2003



                                       20
§ 35.12 Exceptions to the rules against age discrimination: normal operation or statutory objective of any program or activity. A recipient is permitted to take an action otherwise prohibited by § 35.10 if the action reasonably takes age into account as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity. An action reasonably takes age into account as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity if: ( a ) Age is used as a measure or approximation of one or more other characteristics;
( b ) The other characteristic(s) must be measured or approximated in order for the normal operation of the program or activity to continue, or to achieve any statutory objective of the program or activity;
( c ) The other characteristic(s) can reasonably be measured or approximated by the use of age; and
( d ) The other characteristic(s) are impractical to measure directly on an individual basis.
§ 37.52 To what extent may a Governor be liable for the actions of a recipient he or she has financially assisted under WIA Title I? ( a ) The Governor and the recipient are jointly and severally liable for all violations of the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA and this part by the recipient, unless the Governor has: ( 1 ) Established and adhered to a Methods of Administration, under § 37.54, designed to give reasonable guarantee of the recipient's compliance with such provisions;
( 2 ) Entered into a written contract with the recipient that clearly establishes the recipient's obligations regarding nondiscrimination and equal opportunity;
( 3 ) Acted with due diligence to monitor the recipient's compliance with these provisions; and
( 4 ) Taken prompt and appropriate corrective action to effect compliance.
( b ) If the Director determines that the Governor has demonstrated substantial compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, he or she may recommend to the Secretary that the imposition of sanctions against the Governor be waived and that sanctions be imposed only against the noncomplying recipient.