alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 52007IP0081 - EN

*|*

# 52007IP0081

**European Parliament resolution of 15 March 2007 on missing persons in Cyprus **

*
Official Journal 301 E , 13/12/2007 P. 0243 - 0244 *

P6_TA(2007)0081

Missing persons in Cyprus

European Parliament resolution of 15 March 2007 on missing persons in Cyprus

The European Parliament,

- having regard to its resolution of 6 April 1995 [1] on the problem of missing persons in Cyprus,

- having regard to the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly on Cyprus and the international initiatives taken to investigate the fate of missing persons in Cyprus,

- having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) of 10 May 2001 [2] concerning missing persons in Cyprus,

- having regard to Rule 103(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas the problem of missing persons (Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Greeks, Turks and others) is exclusively a humanitarian one deriving from the right of the relatives of missing persons to know their fate,

B. whereas the great agony and suffering of the families of missing persons, who have remained ignorant of their fate for decades, cannot continue any longer, and must finally come to an end,

C. whereas the Committee on Missing Persons (CMP) in Cyprus has been reactivated under the aegis of the UN Secretary-General, and progress, albeit slow, has been made with the exhumation and identification of remains,

D. whereas the European Parliament applauds the constructive cooperation between the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot members of the CMP,

1. Calls on the parties concerned to cooperate sincerely and honestly on a speedy completion of the appropriate investigations into the fate of all missing persons in Cyprus and to implement fully the ECHR judgment of 10 May 2001;

2. Calls on the parties concerned and all those who have, or are in a position to have, any information or evidence emanating from personal knowledge, archives, battlefield reports or records of detention places to pass it on to the CMP without any further delay;

3. Calls on the Council and the Commission to concern themselves actively with this problem, providing, inter alia, financial assistance to the CMP, and to take all necessary steps, in cooperation with the United Nations Secretary-General, to bring about the implementation of the aforementioned ECHR judgment and the relevant UN and European Parliament resolutions;

4. Calls for the problem to be referred to its appropriate committee with a view to follow-up, in close cooperation with the Commission, developments on this issue; asks that the committee be requested to submit periodical reports, the first within six months;

5. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the governments of Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom.

[1] OJ C 109, 1.5.1995, p. 166.

[2] Cyprus v Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001-IV.

--------------------------------------------------
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby provides notice of the membership of its Performance Review Board (PRB) for the Commission's Senior Executive Service (SES) members. The function of this board is to make recommendations relating to the performance of senior executives in the Commission. This action is undertaken in accordance with Title 5, U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The Commission's PRB will remove the following member: Daniel L. Larcamp. 

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7-4715 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

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 Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report of PrimeEnergy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles E. Drimal Jr., Chief Executive Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ Charles E.
Drimal, Jr.
|Chief Executive Officer   
|March 14, 2011
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the quarterly report of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2007 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Frank Rovito, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Frank Rovito

Frank RovitoChief Financial OfficerDated: December 19, 2007

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to East Coast Diversified Corporationand will be retained by East Coast Diversified Corporation and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Neff-2014-12-31-14-Ex10.10(a)


Exhibit 10.10(a)


Second Amendment to Neff Holdings LLC June 1, 2014 Sale Transaction Bonus Plan (A Sub-Plan under the Neff Corporation Senior Executive Bonus Plan)
Reference is made to the Sale Transaction Bonus Plan, Amended and Restated Effective as of June 1, 2014, as further amended on November 7, 2014 (the “Plan”), established by Neff Holdings LLC (the “Company”) to compensate the participants for the loss in value of their stock options resulting from a distribution of cash previously made to the Company’s sponsor in connection with a 2013 dividend recapitalization.  Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth for such terms in the Plan.  By this Second Amendment to Neff Holdings LLC June 1, 2014 Sale Transaction Bonus Plan (this “Amendment”), the Board wishes to amend the Plan in accordance with Section 9(j) thereof in order to clarify the definition of “Sale Transaction” as such term is used therein and to make certain other changes to the Plan.  Accordingly, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
1.  The definition of “Sale Transaction” is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with the following:
“Sale Transaction” shall mean (i) a Change in Control (as defined in the  Neff Corporation 2014 Incentive Award Plan) or (ii) (A) an underwritten public offering by the Company or Neff Corporation pursuant to an effective registration statement covering a sale of equity securities of the Company, Neff Corporation or any of their respective equityholders, as applicable, to the public (a “Public Offering”) or (B) a sale or transfer by Wayzata (as defined in the Neff Corporation 2014 Incentive Award Plan) of equity securities of the Company or Neff Corporation, as applicable, by (a “Wayzata Sale”) that, in the case of (A) or (B), together with all previous Public Offerings (including the Company’s initial public offering that was consummated on November 26, 2014) and/or Wayzata Sales, involves aggregate gross cash proceeds from the sale of such equity securities of at least $175 million.
This Amendment shall become effective as of December 29, 2014.  Except as expressly provided herein, this Amendment shall not, by implication or otherwise, alter, modify, amend or in any way affect any of the terms or other provisions contained in the Plan or any Award Agreement issued in connection therewith, all of which are ratified and confirmed in all respects by the parties and shall continue in full force and effect.  Each reference to the Plan hereafter made in any document, agreement, instrument, notice or communication shall mean and be a reference to the Plan as amended hereby.
The Plan as amended hereby has been adopted by the Compensation Committee of Neff Corporation as a sub-plan under the Senior Executive Bonus Plan of Neff Corporation with respect to employees.
Before the Third Division,

April 26, 1946

No. 51049.

#### Protests 985359-G, etc., of Daiichi Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303). In accordance therewith certain items of the merchandise were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1705 as kelp, and other items were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1540 as seaweeds, manufactured.
#### Village of Savona, Respondent, v Knight Settlement Sand & Gravel, Inc., Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 274]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied, preliminary injunction vacated and amended complaint dismissed. Memorandum: We agree with defendant that the blanket ban on mining in plaintiffs Local Laws, 1970, No. 1 is invalid *(see, Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods, v Town of Sardinia,*208 AD2d 139,149-150, *Iv granted*86 NY2d 707). Dismissal of the amended complaint, which seeks to enforce Local Law No. 1 of 1970, is therefore required. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Purple, Jr., J.—Preliminary Injunction.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ L. Neil HunnL. Neil HunnExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
** **

**Exhibit 32(b)**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Frederick CountyBancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, I, William R. Talley,Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Frederick CountyBancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuantto §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge andbelief, that:

(1) such Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended September 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the informationcontained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.

 
| /s/ William R. Talley, Jr.                                                         |   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| William R. Talley, Jr.                                                             |   |   |   |   |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |

 

----
Before the Second Division,

June 11, 1947

No. 51773.

#### Protest 5541-K of Exacta Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of catheters, sondes, and bougies, wholly or in chief value of gum, similar in all material respects to the merchandise the classification of which was involved *in Bard*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 244, C. D. 134). The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS LEE KOLLARS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2336 DFL KJM P

vs.

M. YARBOROUGH, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On October 26, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02336-DFL -KJM Document 14 Filed 12/29/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 26, 2005, are adopted in full;

and 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: 12/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02336-DFL -KJM Document 14 Filed 12/29/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 53571.

protests 147041-K, etc. (New York).

#### Van Gelder Fanto Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of ox gall and sheep gall the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
No. 64202.

protest 59/27403 (New York).

#### The Coldwater Seafood Corp. *v.*United States,

*474Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

VICTOR R. SAWYERS

v.

NOVELETTE DAVIS AND JOSITA

DEJESUS

PETITION OF: NOVELETTE DAVIS :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 729 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of May, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Eliza A. Perkins v. Sebra Perkins.

'The order of the Circuit Court in Chancery opening for review a decree for permanent alimony in a divorce case, and ordering a reference to a Circuit Court Commissioner •to take proofs, &c., and to report thereon, is not a *final*order from which an appeal can he taken to this Court.

*Heard May 6th,*

*Decided July 21st.*

Appeal from Washtenaw Circuit in Chancery.

On December 2d, 1859, a decree of divorce was made by said Circuit Court in Chancery, in favor of said Eliza A. Perkins, and the • sum of $1,000 ordered to be paid to her by said Sebra Perkins as alimony. The decree for alimony was soon afterwards sold by her to one Renwick. On January 21th, 1862, on the petition of said Sebra Perkins, and after hearing counsel for said Eliza and for Renwick, an order was made by said Circuit Court in Chancery, as follows:

“In this cause, on hearing Joslin *&*Blodget, for defendant, and O. Hawkins, for complainant, on the petition of defendant that the Court review the decree for alimony, it is hereby ordered, that the decree for alimony heretofore entered in this cause be opened for review, and that it be referred to D. S. Twitchell, Circuit Court Commissioner, to take testimony and report to this Court at or before the next term of this Court, the present circumstances and condition of the parties, and the amount and value of the real estate of said defendant, in which the complainant *426claims dower, and that all proceedings on the said decree be stayed until the further order of this Court.”

An appeal was taken from this order.

*O. HawJcins*for appellant.

*Joslin & Blodgett*for appellee.

Martin Ch. J.:

The order in this case is interlocutory, and from it no appeal lies. See *Enos v.*Sutherland, 9 *Mich.*148; *Ballard v. Green, Ibid.*222. The decree of alimony vests in the wife no absolute right to the allowance, as it may be changed from time to time, and reduced or enlarged in the discretion of the Court:— *Comp. L.*§ 3249; *Rogers v. Vines,*6 *Ired. 293; Wheeler v. Wheeler,*18 *Ill.*39; *Sheafe v. Laighton,*36 *N. H.*240; *Miller v. Miller,*6 *Johns. Ch.*91. Whether the decree would be changed or modified depends upon the action of-the Court upon the coming in of the Commissioner’s report; and until some final action upon the report, no appeal lies.

The appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
#### Julius Shapero et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Bon Neuve Realty Corp. et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 1.) 211 West 34th Street Corporation, Plaintiff, v Kenkil Distributors, Inc., et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.) Kenkil Distributors, Inc., et al., Appellants, v 211 West 34th Street Corporation, Respondent. (Action No. 3.)

[634 NYS2d 379]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 17, 1995 and supplemental order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about February 19, 1995, which, after a nonjury trial, *inter alia,*awarded possession of the subject premises to plaintiff 211 West 34th Street Corporation, dismissed the individual plaintiffs’ causes of action, adjudged that 25% ownership of the capital stock of plaintiff corporation was transferred to defendant Bon Neuve Realty Corp., dismissed plaintiffs’ claim for money damages, dismissed the individual defendants’ first through fifth counterclaims and Bon Neuve Realty Corp.’s sixth counterclaim in the first action and dismissed defendants’ counterclaims in the second action, unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.

The determination that the individual defendants in actions numbers 1 and 2 violated paragraphs 11 and 48 of the lease, and thus were, not entitled to exercise the option to renew, was supported by the evidence *(Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 499). Since such violations negated substantial compliance with the lease and it cannot be said that the landlord was not injured by such noncompliance, defendants were not entitled to be relieved of their default *(cf., Atkin’s Waste Materials v May,*34 NY2d 422; *Ogden v Hamer,*268 App Div 751).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.
* 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 circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40149

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARMANDO VASQUEZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-99-CR-320-2

--------------------

December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Armando Vasquez-Garcia appeals his guilty-plea conviction

for possession with intent to distribute approximately one

kilogram of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He argues that his plea was

involuntary due to his counsel’s representation that the 60-month

minimum mandatory sentence was inapplicable to his case and that

he would receive a sentence less than the minimum mandatory

sentence.
No. 00-40149

-2-

When a defendant pleads guilty to a criminal offense, he

waives several constitutional rights. The record of the guiltyplea hearing therefore must affirmatively reflect that the plea

is knowing and voluntary. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243

(1969). The voluntariness of a defendant’s guilty plea is

reviewed de novo. United States v. Amaya, 111 F.3d 386, 388 (5th

Cir. 1997). 

Even if it is assumed that counsel erroneously advised

Vasquez-Garcia that the minimum mandatory sentence was

inapplicable to his case and that he would receive a sentence

less than the 60-month minimum mandatory sentence, such erroneous

information is insufficient to establish that Vasquez-Garcia’s

plea was involuntary. “[R]eliance on the erroneous advice of

counsel relative to the sentence likely to be imposed does not

render a guilty plea unknowing or involuntary.” United States v.

Santa Lucia, 991 F.2d 179, 180 (5th Cir. 1993). As long as the

defendant understood the length of time he might possibly

receive, he was aware of the plea’s consequences. Id.

The district court’s admonishments with regard to the

correct statutory range of Vasquez-Garcia’s sentence at the plea

hearing and Vasquez-Garcia’s sworn acknowledgment that he

understood the possible range of punishment show that VasquezGarcia’s plea was knowing and voluntary. 

AFFIRMED.