alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015350EN.01000501.xml

| 22.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 31 March 2015

in Case E-17/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

v

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions on pursuit of the profession of ‘Dentist’ in Liechtenstein — Proportionality)

(2015/C 350/08)

In Case E-17/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 EEA by maintaining in force national rules, such as Article 63 of the Health Act and the transitional provision in the Act on the repeal of that Article, including the applicability of Article 63(2) of the Health Act in those respects, which require an authorised ‘Dentist’ to pursue this profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 EEA by maintaining in force Article 63 of the Health Act, which requires that a person holding the qualification referred to in German as ‘Dentist’ has to pursue this profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner (‘Zahnarzt’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 EEA by maintaining in force Article 63 of the Health Act, which requires that a person holding the qualification referred to in German as ‘Dentist’ has to pursue this profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner (‘Zahnarzt’).

| 2. | Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
August 27, 1956

No. 60210.

protests 222799-K and 222800-K.

#### Frederick F. Straus and Perryman, Mojonier Company *v.*United States,

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 146 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 146

   Establishing an advisory role for the Senate in the selection of 
                        Supreme Court Justices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 7, 1997

    Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Byrd) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Establishing an advisory role for the Senate in the selection of 
                        Supreme Court Justices.

Whereas article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution authorizes the 
        President to appoint Judges of the Supreme Court ``by and with the 
        Advice and Consent of the Senate'';
Whereas the Senate has exercised its ``Consent'' function with due diligence 
        through extensive hearings and deliberation prior to voting on nominees 
        to the Court;
Whereas the Senate has not historically exercised its ``Advice'' function with 
        the exception of a limited consultation with the President on the 
        selection of a nominee in advance of the President making such a 
        nomination;
Whereas there is no systematic method for selecting Supreme Court nominees, with 
        the President having historically proceeded on an ad hoc basis to 
        consider a limited number of individuals before making his nomination;
Whereas there is an enormous pool of legal talent who could become Supreme Court 
        nominees;
Whereas in one case where the Senate exercised influence on the selection of a 
        nominee, it was to replace Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes with Justice 
        Benjamin Cardozo;
Whereas the importance of having the best and brightest judges is reflected in 
        the fact that the Supreme Court has decided numerous significant cases 
        by a one-vote margin; and
Whereas it would be useful to create a pool of recognized candidates of superior 
        quality for consideration by the President; Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate should better fulfill its ``Advice'' function 
under article II, section 2 by having the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
establish a pool of possible Supreme Court nominees for the President to 
consider, based on suggestions from Federal and State judges, distinguished 
lawyers and law professors, and others with a similar level of insight into the 
suitability of individuals considered for appointment to the Supreme Court.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                             ADFLEX SOLUTIONS, INC.

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Year Ended           Year Ended           Year Ended
                                             December 31,         December 31,         December 31,
                                                 1995                 1996                 1997
                                                 ----                 ----                 ----
<S>                                          <C>                  <C>                  <C>     
Net income (loss)                             $ (3,723)             $(25,024)           $  8,596

Computation of shares used in net income
(loss) per share:

Weighted average common shares
 outstanding                                     6,855                 8,580               8,712

Incremental common equivalent
shares representing shares issuable
upon exercise of stock options
and warrants (1)                                  --                    --                   182
                                              --------              --------            --------

Total weighted average shares - diluted          6,855                 8,580               8,894
                                              ========              ========            ========

Total weighted average shares - basic            6,855                 8,580               8,712
                                              ========              ========            ========
Net income (loss) per diluted common and
common equivalent share                       $   (.54)             $  (2.92)           $   0.97
                                              ========              ========            ========
Net income (loss) per basic common and
common equivalent share                       $   (.54)             $  (2.92)           $   0.99
                                              ========              ========            ========
</TABLE>


--------
(1) Amount calculated using the treasury stock method and fair market values for
stock.
CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the quarterly report of Cancer Therapeutics,  Inc.
      (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
      period  ending  August 31, 2007 as filed with
      the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
      date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),  I,  Chene
      Gardner,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the
      Company,  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of the Securities
                Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated
      as
      of October 15, 2007





By           /s/
      Chene Gardner


_______________________


Chene
      Gardner


Chief
      Financial Officer
Petition for Exemption/Rulemaking

To Whom It May Concern:

I am an operator interested in conducting aerial photography with a purchased off-the-shelf, small,

unmanned aircraft system (UAS) (Gross weight < 55 lbs). Please note picture below.

I am writing to you to petition the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption under Section 

333 to allow the operation of UAS for the purpose of scripted, closed-set filming for the motion picture and 

television industry. 

1. The UAS will have a gross weight < 55 lbs, including energy source(s) and equipment.

2. The operations will be for the following aircraft described in the operator’s manual: “Solo User 

Manual.”

3. The UAS will not be flown at a speed exceeding a ground speed of 50 knots.

4. Flights will be operated at an altitude of no more than 200 feet above ground level (AGL), as 

indicated by the procedures specified in the operator’s manual. All altitudes reported to ATC will 

be in feet AGL.

5. The UAS will be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command (PIC) at all 

times. 

6. All operations will use a visual observer (VO), who may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement 

as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be able to 

communicate verbally at all times. 

7. The operator’s manual is considered acceptable to the FAA and the operator will follow the 

procedures as outlined in its operator’s manual.

8. Prior to each flight the PIC will inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe flight. If the 

inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft will be 

prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS is 

found to be in a condition for safe flight. 

The PIC has over 100 hours flying similar off-the-shelf, small UAS and quadcopters (Gross weight < 55 

lbs) as a hobby.

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

André Alfa

310.666.8426

agalfa@gmail.com
# Official Journal L 266/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.266.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 266 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 529 October 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.266.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 266

English edition

Legislation

Volume 529 October 2009

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 923/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 establishing the second ‘Marco Polo’ programme for the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system (Marco Polo II) (1) | 1 |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on cross-border payments in the Community and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1) | 11 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EC) No 923/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 establishing the second ‘Marco Polo’ programme for the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system (Marco Polo II) (1)

1

*

Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on cross-border payments in the Community and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1)

11

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Staff Sergeant NEIL C. MACDONALD

United States Air Force

ACM 38491

16 June 2014

Sentence adjudged 25 September 2013 by GCM convened at Joint Base 

Andrews, Maryland. Military Judge: Christopher A. Santoro (sitting 

alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Captain Jeffrey A. Davis.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Don M. Christensen.

Before

HECKER, MITCHELL, and WEBER

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release.

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). 

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
BOARD OF GOVERNORS 

OF" THE 

FECERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

WASHINGTON, D. C:. 20551 

September 24,2013 

SANDRA F. BRAUNSTEIN 

DIRECTOR 

DIVISION OF CONSUMER 

AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 

CA 13-14 

TO THE OFFICERS AND MANAGERS IN CHARGE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS 

SECTIONS AND TO STATE MEMBER BANKS: 

SUBJECT: Interagency Guidance on Privacy Laws and Reporting Financial Abuse of 

Older Adults 

Applicability to Community Banking Organizations: This guidance applies to all state 

member banks, including those with $10 billion or less in consolidated assets. 

The Federal Reserve is issuing the attached statement, Interagency Guidance on Privacy 

Laws and Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults, to clarify the applicability of privacy 

provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) to reporting suspected financial exploitation 

of older adults. The guidance clarifies for financial institutions that reporting suspected elder 

financial abuse to law enforcement, social service and other appropriate agencies does not, in 

general, violate the privacy provisions of GLBA. Employees of fmancial institutions can play a 

key role in preventing and detecting elder financial exploitation by reporting information about 

suspicious activities to appropriate authorities with jurisdiction in financial exploitation cases. 

This guidance does not impose additional compliance or examination requirements on 

financial institutions or examiners, respectively. The guidance is intended to equip individuals 

who may observe signs of possible financial exploitation of an older adult with information 

about those signs and inform them about GLBA exceptions that would permit sharing of 

nonpublic personal information with local, state, or federal agencies for the purpose of reporting 

suspected financial abuse of older adults. 
Federal Reserve Banks are asked to distribute this letter and the accompanying guidance 

to state member banks, as well as to supervisory and examination staff. Questions on the 

attached guidance should be directed to Carol Evans, Assistant Director, at (202) 452-2051; or 

Lanette Meister, Senior Supervisory Consumer Financial Services Analyst, at (202) 452-2705. 

In addition, questions may be sent via the Board's public website. 1 

Sincerely, 

. ·· ·. · . · .... ... -· '- ~ '··- . . . . - · . . ../)-\5( . "··~ 

Attachment: Interagency Guidance on Privacy Laws and Reporting Financial Abuse of Older 

Adults 

1 See http://www. federalreserve. gov I apps/contactus/feedback.aspx. 

2
Exhibit 32
                    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 Souvall-Page and Company, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Annual Report"), we, David C. Merrell, President and director, and Todd D.
Ross, Secretary/Treasurer 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

Dated: 3/30/06                           /s/David C. Merrell
       -------                           ---------------------------
                                         David C. Merrell
                                         President and director

Dated: 3/30/06                           /s/Todd D. Ross
      --------                           ---------------------------
                                         Todd D. Ross
                                         Secretary/Treasurer and director
f..ft.Q. Dl»-\S-D0Q3g-Cft XlO Tu£ COOftf Of C£CHOl&L (VPPCALS RECEBWE_ ... 

### FILEDIN ftd5£Rf &RJCJL DmJL&U£ftfVC0URY0FCR!^Almm* COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS nrT .. nn,_ ^x|- OCT 01 2015 OCT 0122^5 * Abel Acosta, Clerk £XKS< MoTIDv) £oR gXf&OSXksO Of 1irt£ 

### To ftol toRwyi Codr< d£ cerMTiOAL frWemS*: Tars, MofiiMO To fi£Qoe>fTUAfTA£ tcm£. foe siix^

&M 3o o^iTo ftLLou) urn te&otdp&uc txhet To
30 DM 0£&DUtt£ £o# ftxr»JGr A PerXfXi*} foe A QiscsectaM^ af TLm Txm£ ft&u&ue&r-t £xL£k-mrs> RC&osir pro-s£

n 

### Turk £xf£iasi6i0 %$, f^or <ofi Pui?pos£ of oioaitu£ 

### &Klfu£> TO a Cov)RffrPfeGOTtPO AtTDtatetf TO fiOX HIS 

## (PM)PoQ Hrn, -I-^o D&vMWftwN Q&?&x£\kLV< (?daoeTaootodm^l 

### -TxtAl SO WC Y\M fta)I£vd TH£ QZCDQAk Hoe£ Eyr&Osroexy



## CM& flBfiPfttfL AislO £nu£ Tw\£ (PORj Pto-S£, irt€2£U&S &fc&0 >» PR£\)ldO^ SEQUENT fog Ak) £iT£i^Mixa. 

### <Uii uuoc«sr^ioto was* aita&jt to co^gol uirnl TU£ SfGrtl AUO OoCtoaf Rito*) ££ TU£ SffeTE. XS> OPft&CD To fHri AWtaii To gwrtoto <±\C TxwC £b£ fiELrsofi- «n Poxixoo 

### <bt QDiLcetro^ftW c^jxfiua To ocroMiLrac s,:2o^, &fch0 foft SAJOA OftttiZ. &*JO &)RtU£& tfttXttP tt> IA4XCM "^ ££S£&tt& 13* ^ustfltf £^rXT\j£ft.
Tac T^(^ 0CP&er>*0Jr dp (jLiwxjj&Ltfifira^ atYU£



### Wtool UlimK T^ u)ftu*en £oa^ Tcvki oecuvfcC aitott

(tojoiiM op' Pc&xom Twwvf £ Wmi£ ££&& Tun norxao &k)& Tvte£#«irf£ Horxao to sospqjo q>3 KoujJk a^ Tn&r 

# e*>0 cods/. jQ^^hamLd^Uo^
-2-
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 26, 2009

Mr. Wayne H. Paris

Gillis, Paris & Heinrich, P.L.L.C.

8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 818

Houston, TX 77046

Ms. Cynthia W. Hamilton

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel

PO Box 12487

Austin, TX 78711-2487

RE:Case Number:  08-0705

Court of Appeals Number:  

Trial Court Number:  BODA# 41135

Style:IN THE MATTER OF BOMA O. ALLISON

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion/s and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 08-0705Page 1**
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determ ined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60222 Summary Calendar SANG DAE PARK,

Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

--------------------------------------------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A37 704 357

--------------------------------------------------------- Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Sang Dae Park, a cit izen of Ko rea, peti tions this court to review the order by the Board of Im migration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from th e order of th e Im migrati on Judge (IJ) denying his request fo r a discretionary waiver of removal under fo rm er Im migration and Nationality Act § 212(c), fo rm

er 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Park contends that (1) the IJ plainly erred in finding that he was ineligible for § 212(c) relief because th e IJ conflated statutory eligibilit y wit h discretion, (2)-2-

he was denied due process because th e IJ applied th e inco rrect legal standard, and (3) th e IJ abused his discretion in failing to consider favorable evidence and in denying relief. Because Park’s thir d argument attacks th e IJ’s weighing of th e favorable and adverse factors fo r § 212(c) relief and does not present a constitutional or legal question, this court lacks jurisdiction as to that cl aim. S ee Delgado-Reynua , 450 F.3d 596, 600 (5th Cir. 2006). Additionally, this court is wit hout jurisdiction to review Park’s remaining claims because h e f ailed to present them in his appeal to th e BIA and th erefore failed to exhaust his administ rative remedies. See Wang v. Ashcroft , 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Park’s petition for review is DISMISSED.