alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 34.50-1 Application—TB/ALL. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart, with the exception of §§ 34.50-80 and 34.50-90, must apply to all vessels contracted for on or after August 22, 2016.
( b ) Vessels contracted for prior to August 22, 2016 but on or after January 1, 1962, must meet the requirements of § 34.50-80.
( c ) All vessels contracted for prior to January 1, 1962, must meet the requirements of § 34.50-90.
[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48249, July 22, 2016]
*Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60729 cons/w

No. 96-60730

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LOU CAROLYN MCPHAIL,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(3:96-CV-014-D)

June 30, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lou Carolyn McPhail, federal prisoner #09655-042, and Sarah Trilby McPhail, federal

prisoner #09657-042, appealfromthe district court’s denialoftheirmotionsto modifytheirsentences

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). Essentially, the McPhails argue the district court abused its

discretion in denying their motions. They contend that a 1995 amendment to the sentencing

guidelines, Amendment 516, applies retroactively to their sentences for possession with intent to
2

distribute marijuana. Although the guidelines gave retroactive effect to Amendment 516, its

application to the McPhail’s convictions does not result in reductions in sentence. As the McPhails

were convicted of possessing in excess of 14,000 marijuana plants which, even under Amendment

516, equatesto in excess of 1000 kilograms ofmarijuana, the statutorilymandated minimumsentence

often years’imprisonment that theyreceived initiallyfor the narcotics convictionsremains unaffected

by the amendment. See U.S.S.G. §X 5G1.1 (c)(2). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the McPhails’ motions to modify their sentences. Accordingly, the district

court’s judgment denying the McPhails’ § 3582 (c)(2) motions is AFFIRMED.
# C_2014009EN.01001501.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-547/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - Clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of certain Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAGGF - Amounts which are recoverable from the Hellenic Republic following failure to recover within the period prescribed - Distortion of evidence)

2014/C 9/22

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and S. Papaïoannou, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and D.Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2012 in Case T-158/09 Greece v Commission by which the General Court partially rejected an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 810 final of 13 February 2009 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in certain cases of irregularity by operators

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

---
---

---

# EXHIBIT 13.2

Certification Required by Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Eli Gendler, Chief Financial
Officer of Cimatron Ltd. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350 (as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that, to my
knowledge:

(1)
          The annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December           31, 2004, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
          Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Eli Gendler
____________________
Eli Gendler
Chief Financial Officer
June 30, 2005



---

---
# C_2014085EN.01000902.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG (formerly Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG), Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG

(Case C-558/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark WESTERN GOLD - Opposition by the proprietor of the national, international and Community word marks WeserGold, Wesergold and WESERGOLD)

2014/C 85/15

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, Agent)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG (formerly Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG) (represented by: T. Melchert, Rechtsanwalt), Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wolter and A.K. Marx, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 21 September 2012 in Case T-278/10 Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung, by which the General Court (First Chamber) annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2010 (Case R 770/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG — Application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign ‘WESTERN GOLD’ — Likelihood of confusion with the national, international and Community word marks ‘WeserGold’, ‘Wesergold’ and ‘WESERGOLD’ — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

Wesergold Getränkeindustrie

OHIM — Lidl Stiftung

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 September 2012 in Case T-278/10 Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (WESTERN GOLD); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 September 2012 in Case T-278/10 Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (WESTERN GOLD);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

1

---
2:15-cr-20095-MAG-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 02/17/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 37
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending September 2, 2006

|Filer                    | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                                  
|------------------------ | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|ASHLEY BANCSTOCK COMPANY | * 3A3          | Ashley Bancstock Company, Crossett, Arkansas, to acquire 100 percent of First Community Bank of Crawford County, Van Buren, Arkansas. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available  
|Newspaper:               | Not available 
|Federal Register:        | Not available 
|DEARMIN BANCORP, INC.    | CIC            | Notice by Dearmin Investment Holdings Business, L.P., Odon, Indiana, to acquire 100 percent of Dearmin Bancorp, Inc., Odon, Indiana.  | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:09/08/2006     
|Newspaper:               | Not available 
|Federal Register:        | 09/08/2006    
|S. Y. BANCORP, INC.      | 4c8            | S.Y. Bancorp, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky, proposes to engage in extending credit and servicing loans.                                 | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:               | Not applicable
|Federal Register:        | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
(logo)LSI
                                                                 FINANCIAL GROUP



April 25, 1997

Frances Okougbo
Norwest Corporate Trust
11000 Brokenland Parkway
Columbia MD 21044



RE:  Servicing Agreement dated February 1, 1996, between Norwest Bank Minnesota,
     National Association ("Trustee") and LSI Financial Group ("Servicer") for
     Access Financial Mortgage Loan Trust 1996-1



Dear Ms. Okougbo,

A review of the  activities of the Servicer  during the preceding  calendar year
and of its performance under the above referenced  agreement has been made under
my supervision and pursuant to Section 3.16 of the Servicing  Agreement.  To the
best of my knowledge,  based on such review,  the Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations.



Sincerely,
/s/ Timothy S. Sambrano
Timothy S. Sambrano
President



c: Ms. Sylvia Borchert



                                                            17500 Chenal Parkway
                                                                       Suite 200
                                                Little Rock, Arkansas 72211-9131
# C_2011152EN.01003302.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/33

---

Action brought on 7 February 2011 — Sabbag Afota v Council

(Case F-9/11)

2011/C 152/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Veronica Sabbag Afota (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 11 in the 2010 promotion exercise.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the Council’s decision of 19 November 2010 rejecting the complaint against the decision of the Appointing Authority not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 11 in the 2010 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Council’s decision of 19 November 2010 rejecting the complaint against the decision of the Appointing Authority not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 11 in the 2010 promotion exercise;

| — | to the necessary extent, annul the decision of the countersigning officer finalising the applicant’s report for the 2008-2009 reporting period and the decision of the Appointing Authority of 26 April 2010 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 11 in the 2010 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

to the necessary extent, annul the decision of the countersigning officer finalising the applicant’s report for the 2008-2009 reporting period and the decision of the Appointing Authority of 26 April 2010 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 11 in the 2010 promotion exercise;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

---
COMPENSATION AGREEMENT

This Agreement is dated this _______ day of _________________, 2000


BETWEEN

CathayBancorp.com, Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("Hong Kong"), the People's
Republic of China ("PRC") (the "Company")

AND

PRC Entertainment Group, Inc., a company incorporated under the laws of
Hong Kong, PRC ("PEGI")


WHEREAS PEGI has provided various services to the Company, including
introducing the Company to various business opportunities and transactions,
and the Company wishes to compensate PEGI for such services rendered.

IN CONSIDERATION OF mutual promises and other valuable considerations,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby recognized, the Parties
agree as follows:

1. 	For the past services rendered by PEGI for the Company and future
services to be rendered by PEGI to the Company that are agreed to be by
Parties,some of which are more specifically described below, the Company
agrees to compensate PEGI in accordance with the following terms and
conditions:

(1) Upon the formal establishment of a sino-foreign joint venture company
(the"JV"), which was contemplated by a co-operation agreement entered into
in May 2000 among the Company, Sichuan Guo Xun Xin Xi Chan Ye You Xian Gong
Si, TorchNet Co. Ltd., and Capital Culture Company (the "Co-operation
Agreement"), the Company will pay PEGI US$500,000;

(2) Upon the completion of the entertainment websites to be owned by the JV in
accordance with the Cooperation Agreement, the Company will cause the Parent
to issue to PEGI 250,000 shares;

(3) Upon the JV obtaining necessary license to operate the talk show programs
in accordance with the Cooperation Agreement, the Company will cause the
Parent to issue 250,000 shares to PEGI.

2. This Agreement is governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
Hong Kong and the Parties hereby submit to the non-exclusive jurisdictions of
the courts in Hong Kong.

3. Any provisions hereof held by a competent court or arbitration tribunal
to be invalid or illegal shall not affect the validity of other provisions
hereof which shall remain intact and legally binding.  The Parties shall
continue to implement such other provisions.

4. This Agreement shall be binding on and enure to the benefits of heirs,
executors,administrators, successors and assigns of the Parties hereto.


Executed by the Parties at the place and on the date first above mentioned.


CathayBancorp.com, Limited

Per:_________________(corporate seal)

PRC Entertainment Group, Inc.


Per:_________________ (corporate seal)



2
MS Word: 26942.01
Exhibit 99.1

                                  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  Highlands  Bankshares,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ending  December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Samuel L. Neese, Chief Executive Officer 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) 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/ Samuel L. Neese
---------------------------
Samuel L. Neese
Chief Executive Officer
March 26, 2003

This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  Sec.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

[A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Highlands  Bankshares,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by  Highlands
Bankshares,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
Exhibit 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


                                                          YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31,
                                                          1997     1996     1995
                                                          ----     ----     ----

Primary:

<S>                                                       <C>      <C>     <C>  
Average shares outstanding                                8,430    8,202   8,284

Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on the
 treasury stock method using average market price            75      160      --
                                                          -----    -----   -----

Total                                                    $8,505   $8,362  $8,284
                                                          =====    =====   =====

Net income (loss) from operations                         2,858   (5,910)   (218)

   Less: Preferred stock dividends                          260       --      --

   Discount attributable to beneficial
    conversion privilege of preferred stock               1,268       --      --
                                                          -----    -----   -----

Net income (loss) applicable to common stock             $1,332  $(5,910) $ (218)
                                                          =====    =====   =====
Income (loss) per common share                           $ 0.16  $ (0.17) $(0.03)
                                                          =====    =====   =====

Fully Diluted:

Average shares outstanding                                8,430    8,202    8,284

Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on the
 treasury stock method using the year-end
 market price, if higher than the average market
 price                                                       82      164      --
                                                          -----    -----   -----
Total                                                     8,512    8,366   8,284
                                                          =====    =====   =====

Net income (loss) from operations                        $2,858  $(5,910) $ (216)

  Less: Preferred stock dividends                           260       --      --

  Discount attributable to beneficial
   conversion privelege of preferred stock                1,266       --      --
                                                          -----    -----   -----

Net income (loss) applicable to common stock             $1,332  $(5,910) $ (218)
                                                          =====    =====   =====

Income (loss) per common share                           $ 0.16  $ (0.71) $(0.03)
                                                          =====    =====   =====


</TABLE>
# C_2012399EN.01002203.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/22

---

Order of the General Court of 23 October 2012 — Chivas v OHIM — Glencairn Scotch Whisky (CHIVALRY)

(Case T-530/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Opposition withdrawn - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 399/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd (Paisley, Renfrewshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Carboni, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Glencairn Scotch Whisky Co. Ltd (Glasgow, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2011 (Case R-2334/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Glencairn Scotch Whisky Co. Ltd and Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.

1

---