alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 12005SAN07/02 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12005SAN07/02

**Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded - Annex VII:List referred to in Article 23 of the Act of Accession: transitional measures, Romania - 2.Freedom to provide services **

*
Official Journal L 157 , 21/06/2005 P. 0314 - 0315 *

2. FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES

31997 L 0009: Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes (OJ L 84, 26.3.1997, p. 22).

By way of derogation from Article 4(1) of Directive 97/9/EC, the minimum level of compensation shall not apply in Romania until 31 December 2011. Romania shall ensure that its investor‐compensation scheme provides for cover of not less than EUR 4500 from 1 January 2007 until 31 December 2007, of not less than EUR 7000 from 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2008, of not less than EUR 9000 from 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2009, of not less than EUR 11000 from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010 and of not less than EUR 15000 from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011.

During the transitional period the other Member States will retain the right to prevent a branch of a Romanian investment firm established on their territories from operating unless and until such a branch has joined an officially recognised investor-compensation scheme within the territory of the Member State concerned in order to cover the difference between the Romanian level of compensation and the minimum level referred to in Article 4(1) of Directive 97/9/EC.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12008E226 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E226

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART SIX: INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - TITLE I: INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - Chapter 1: The institutions - Section 1: The European Parliament - Article 226 (ex Article 193 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0150 - 0150 *

Article 226

(ex Article 193 TEC)

In the course of its duties, the European Parliament may, at the request of a quarter of its component Members, set up a temporary Committee of Inquiry to investigate, without prejudice to the powers conferred by the Treaties on other institutions or bodies, alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Union law, except where the alleged facts are being examined before a court and while the case is still subject to legal proceedings.

The temporary Committee of Inquiry shall cease to exist on the submission of its report.

The detailed provisions governing the exercise of the right of inquiry shall be determined by the European Parliament, acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure, after obtaining the consent of the Council and the Commission.

--------------------------------------------------
[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.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:Off-site surveillance activities of the Southwestern Radiological HealthLaboratory**** 
SuDocNumber:EP1.2:OF 2/
ItemNumber:0431-I-01(online)
CGPsystem Number: 000600760
 - SWRHL_20.pdfSWRHL_22.pdfSWRHL_24.pdfSWRHL_37.pdfSWRHL_38.pdfSWRHL_47.pdfSWRHL_52.pdfSWRHL_64.pdfSWRHL_81.pdfSWRHL_83.pdfSWRHL_97.pdfSWRHL_98.pdfSWRHL_108.pdfNERC_LV_539-17.pdf
 **
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT MARTY LEE RORIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, and CARL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, No. 96-7548 v. FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of the Department of Corrections; CAPTAIN STEEN; CHAPLAIN SMITH, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-96-363-3-MU) Submitted: May 30, 1997 Decided: June 19, 1997 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Marty Lee Rorie, Appellant Pro Se.Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint alleging deliberate indifference to a known risk of harm to Appellant by another inmate. In his complaint, Appellant alleges that prison officials Captain Steen and Chaplain Smith warned him about a specific threat to him by a certain inmate,and then failed to intervene when the inmate was reassigned to Appellant's housing unit within the week. Appellant and the inmate were involved in a confrontation shortly thereafter. Finding that Appellanthad failed to allege a constitutional violation, the district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have held that deliberate or callous indifference on the part of prison officials to specific known risks of harm states an Eighth Amendment claim. Pressly v. Hutto , 816 F.2d 977, 979 (4th Cir. 1987); see also Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). Contrary to the finding of the district court, Appellant's complaint clearly alleges the deliberate indifference of Steen and Smith to a known riskof attack by a specific inmate. It cannot be said, therefore, that Appellant fails to allege a constitutional violation or that his allegations are simply conclusory. Accordingly, we find that Appellant's complaint against Steen and Smith is not factually or legally frivolous on its face. We therefore vacate the dismissal order and remand the matter for further proceedings as to these Defendants.We find, however, that the claim against Secretary Franklin Freeman was properly dismissed because there is nothing in the record to suggest that Freeman knew of a pervasive risk of harm to Appellant and failed to address the problem. Moore v. Winebrenner , 927 F.2d 1312, 1315 (4th Cir. 1991). We deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel and for an injunction to permit correspon-
2dence with another inmate. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART 3
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 1, 2024

NO. 03-23-00405-CR

Daniel Carcamo, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 460TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED; MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED

OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no error in the court’s

judgments for assault and aggravated assault requiring reversal. However, there was error in the 

judgment and sentence for aggravated assault that requires correction. Therefore, the Court 

modifies the judgment and sentence for aggravated assault to reflect that appellant was convicted 

of a second-degree felony, affirms that judgment as modified, and affirms the other judgment of 

conviction for assault. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of 

costs is made.
Argued and submitted January 26,

reversed and remanded in part with instructions; otherwise affirmed March 2, 1994

#### Marilyn FRIEDRICK and Ray Verbout, *Respondents, v.*Jack L. JOHNSON and Patricia A. Johnson, husband and wife, *Appellants.*

(92-02-34727; CA A79071)

869 P2d 872

George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.

Stephen P. Riedlinger filed the brief for respondents.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.

*547WARREN, P. J.

*548WARREN, P. J.

Defendants appeal from a judgment awarding plaintiffs possession of certain property by adverse possession. We review *de novo,*ORS 19.125(3), and reverse in part.

In 1989, plaintiffs purchased an improved property adjoining defendants’ property. After a dispute arose between the parties, plaintiffs hired a surveyor to establish the legal boundary between the two properties. The survey showed that one side of plaintiffs’ house, built in 1920, encroached six inches onto defendants’ property. Plaintiffs brought this action and the trial court entered judgment for plaintiffs, finding that they had adversely possessed the six inches of defendants’ property lying under plaintiffs’ house and a three-foot strip next to the house. In the trial court, defendants did not preserve any argument that the six-inch encroachment did not result in adverse possession.

 To establish title to the three-foot strip by adverse possession, plaintiffs must show by clear and positive proof actual, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous and hostile possession of the property for a 10-year period. *See*ORS 105.620; *Hopkins v. State of Oregon,*96 Or App 717, 773 P2d 825 (1989). Even assuming that plaintiffs have adversely occupied the three-foot strip since they purchased the property in 1989, there is *no*evidence that their predecessors occupied any part of that strip, adversely or otherwise, for the statutory period.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a modified judgment awarding plaintiffs the six inches of defendants’ property underlying plaintiffs’ house; otherwise affirmed.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

 

 

 August 29, 2022 

Via Electronic Mail Only 

cg@gobergroup.com

ew@gobergroup.com

Chris K. Gober 

Eric Wang

The Gober Group PLLC 

1442 Falcon Head Blvd 

Building E-100, Suite 226 

Austin, TX 78738 

RE: MUR 8058

 Save Missouri Values and Cabell Hobbs, Treasurer 

 

Dear Counsel: 

This is in response to your request for an extension to respond to the 

complaint filed in the above-mentioned matter we received on August 29, 2022. 

After considering the circumstances in the matter, the Office of General Counsel 

has decided to grant the requested extension. Accordingly, your client’s response 

is due on or before the close of business on October 10, 2022. 

 

If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 694-1519 or 

cela@fec.gov. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Christal Dennis, Paralegal

 Complaints Examination and 

 Legal Administration 

MUR805800029
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 31.2
                  Certification of Principal Financial Officer
                 (SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Kung-Chieh Huang, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
EUPA International Corporation (the "Registrant"), certifies that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of EUPA International
Corporation.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 registrant, 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 registrant's 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 changes 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 registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's 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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

_____________________
Kung-Chieh Huang
Date: April 7, 2004
§ 2.14 Sanitation and refuse. ( a ) The following are prohibited: ( 1 ) Disposing of refuse in other than refuse receptacles.
( 2 ) Using government refuse receptacles or other refuse facilities for dumping household, commercial, or industrial refuse, brought as such from private or municipal property, except in accordance with conditions established by the superintendent.
( 3 ) Depositing refuse in the plumbing fixtures or vaults of a toilet facility.
( 4 ) Draining refuse from a trailer or other vehicle, except in facilities provided for such purpose.
( 5 ) Bathing, or washing food, clothing, dishes, or other property at public water outlets, fixtures or pools, except at those designated for such purpose.
( 6 ) Polluting or contaminating park area waters or water courses.
( 7 ) Disposing of fish remains on land, or in waters within 200 feet of boat docks or designated swimming beaches, or within developed areas, except as otherwise designated.
( 8 ) In developed areas, the disposal of human body waste, except at designated locations or in fixtures provided for that purpose.
( 9 ) In nondeveloped areas, the disposal of human body waste within 100 feet of a water source, high water mark of a body of water, or a campsite, or within sight of a trail, except as otherwise designated.
( b ) The superintendent may establish conditions concerning the disposal, containerization, or carryout of human body waste. Violation of these conditions is prohibited.
# EUR-Lex - 12008E/AFI/DCL/62 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E/AFI/DCL/62

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - DECLARATIONS annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007 - C. DECLARATIONS BY MEMBER STATES - 62. Declaration by the Republic of Poland concerning the Protocol on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in relation to Poland and the United Kingdom **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0358 - 0358 *

62. Declaration by the Republic of Poland concerning the Protocol on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in relation to Poland and the United Kingdom

Poland declares that, having regard to the tradition of social movement of "Solidarity" and its significant contribution to the struggle for social and labour rights, it fully respects social and labour rights, as established by European Union law, and in particular those reaffirmed in Title IV of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

--------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 13.2



Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Mayne Group Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia (the
Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                               
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|                        | 
|Dated: November 8, 2004 |  | /s/    PAUL BINFIELD          
|                        |  | Name: Paul Binfield           
|                        |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer
# EUR-Lex - 12004V386 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V386

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE VI — THE FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - CHAPTER I — PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTIONS - Section 2 — The Union's advisory bodies - Subsection 1 — The Committee of the Regions - Article III-386 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0167 - 0167 *

Article III-386

The number of members of the Committee of the Regions shall not exceed 350. The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt a European decision determining the Committee's composition.

The members of the Committee and an equal number of alternate members shall be appointed for five years. Their term of office shall be renewable. No member of the Committee shall at the same time be a member of the European Parliament.

The Council shall adopt the European decision establishing the list of members and alternate members drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.

When the mandate referred to in Article I-32(2) on the basis of which they were proposed comes to an end, the term of office of members of the Committee shall terminate automatically and they shall then be replaced for the remainder of the said term of office in accordance with the same procedure.

--------------------------------------------------
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 Salon Media Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Elizabeth Hambrecht, President, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


August 12, 2004                               /s/ Elizabeth Hambrecht
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Elizabeth Hambrecht
                                              President, Chief Financial Officer
                                              and Secretary
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

Marc for US Inc. and Lisa Lisker in her 

official capacity as treasurer; Molinaro 

for Dutchess; Marcus J. Molinaro: EPS 

Dismissal Report 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MUR 8129 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Vicktoria J. Allen, Deputy Secretary of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on March 06, 2024, the Commission 

decided by a vote of 6-0 to take the following actions in MUR 8129: 

1. Dismiss the Complaint consistent with the Commission’s 

prosecutorial discretion to determine the proper ordering of its 

priorities and use of agency resources. Heckler v. Chaney, 

470 U.S. 821, 831-32 (1985), as recommended in the EPS Dismissal 

Report dated February 26, 2024. 

 

2. Close the file as to all Respondents. 

3. Send the appropriate letters. 

Commissioners Broussard, Cooksey, Dickerson, Lindenbaum, Trainor, and 

Weintraub voted affirmatively for the decision. 

 Attest: 

 March 6, 2024 

 

Date Vicktoria J. Allen 

 Deputy Secretary of the Commission 

Vicktoria J Allen

Digitally signed by Vicktoria J 

Allen 

Date: 2024.03.06 16:23:37 

-05'00'

MUR812900040
Exhibit 21.1

                                  Subsidiaries

                                                                 Jurisdiction of
                  Subsidiary                                      Organization


          1.      SPSS International, BV                         The Netherlands

          2.      SPSS Asia Pacific Pte Ltd                      Singapore

          3.      SPSS Benelux BV                                The Netherlands

          4.      SPSS GmbH                                      Germany

          5.      SPSS Scandinavia AB                            Sweden

          6.      SPSS (UK) Ltd.                                 England

          7.      SPSS Japan, Inc.                               Japan

          8.      SPSS Australasia Pty. Ltd.                     Australia

          9.      SPSS UK Ltd., India                            India

         10.      SPSS France Sarl                               France

         11.      SPSS ASC  GmbH                                 Germany

         12.      Clear Software, Inc.                           Massachusetts

         13.      Jandel Corporation                             California