alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Europos Sąjungos C 140I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0960 |
| --- | --- |
| Europos Sąjungos
  oficialusis leidinys | C 140I |
| | |
| Leidimas lietuvių kalba | Informacija ir pranešimai | 64 metai2021m. balandžio 21d. |

ISSN 1977-0960

Europos Sąjungos

oficialusis leidinys

C 140I

Leidimas lietuvių kalba

Informacija ir pranešimai

64 metai2021m. balandžio 21d.

---

| Turinys | Puslapis |
| --- | --- |
| | Klaidų ištaisymas |
| | Europos darbuotojų saugos ir sveikatos agentūra (EU-OSHA), Bilbao. Pranešimo apie konkursą vykdomojo direktoriaus pareigoms (AD 14 lygio laikinasis darbuotojas). COM/2020/20049 – klaidų ištaisymas ( OL C 171 A, 2020 5 19 ) | 1 |

Turinys

Puslapis

Klaidų ištaisymas

Europos darbuotojų saugos ir sveikatos agentūra (EU-OSHA), Bilbao. Pranešimo apie konkursą vykdomojo direktoriaus pareigoms (AD 14 lygio laikinasis darbuotojas). COM/2020/20049 – klaidų ištaisymas ( OL C 171 A, 2020 5 19 )

( OL C 171 A, 2020 5 19 )

1

---

| LT | |
| --- | --- |

LT

---

Klaidų ištaisymas

| 2021 4 21 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | CI 140/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2021 4 21

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

CI 140/1

---

Europos darbuotojų saugos ir sveikatos agentūra (EU-OSHA), Bilbao. Pranešimo apie konkursą vykdomojo direktoriaus pareigoms (AD 14 lygio laikinasis darbuotojas). COM/2020/20049 – klaidų ištaisymas

(
  Europos Sąjungos Oficialusis leidinys C 171 A, 2020 m. gegužės 19 d.
  )

(2021/C 140 I/01)

4 puslapis, šešta pastraipa:

yra:

„Prieš Valdančiajai tarybai paskiriant vieną kandidatą iš galutinio sąrašo, kandidatų gali būti prašoma prisistatyti kompetentingiems Tarybos ir Europos Parlamento organams ir atsakyti į klausimus. Europos Parlamentas ir Europos Sąjungos Taryba pateiks savo nuomones ir kandidatų sąrašus, sudarytus pirmenybės tvarka. Valdančioji taryba vykdomąjį direktorių skirs atsižvelgusi į šias nuomones.“,

turi būti:

„Atrinktas kandidatas kviečiamas padaryti pareiškimą Europos Parlamente ir atsakyti į Parlamento narių klausimus.“

---
No. 95-2524

Augustine Bailey, Debbie Bailey, * Laverne Gregory, and * Merle Johnson, *

* Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas. Area Agency on Aging of * Southeast Arkansas, Inc.; * [UNPUBLISHED] Bobby Ashcraft, in His Individual * and Official Capacity as a * Member of Its Board of Directors; * Wilson Crain, in His Individual * and Official Capacity as a * Member of Its Board of Directors; * Florene Chadick, in Her Individual* and Official Capacity as a * Member of Its Board of Directors; * Nelson Thompson, in His Individual* and Official Capacity as a * Member of Its Board of Directors; * Cary Clark, in His Individual * and Official Capacity as a * Member of Its Board of Directors; * James Bennett, in His Individual * and Official Capacity as a * Member of Its Board of Directors; * Paul Fisher, in His Individual * and Official Capacity as a * Member of Its Board of Directors; * and John Clark, in His Individual * and Official Capacity as a * Member of Its Board of Directors, *

* Appellees. *

Submitted: February 14, 1996
Filed: March 11, 1996

### The Honorab le William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2- Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In 1992, the four plaintiffs were fired from their positions as van drivers for the Area Agency on Aging of Southeas t Arkansas. They sued the

agency and its board of directors in federal district court, alleging a deprivation of consti tutional rights by the state. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On motion, the district court granted summary judgment to th e defendants in mid-1995, holding that there was no state action by th e defendants. The plaintiffs appealed. We have read the briefs, examined
the exhibits, considered the district court record, and heard oral argumen t by the parties. Because we discern no error of law in the record, w e affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 1

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Warren HEINTJES.

No. 59480.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 6, 1977.

In re: Warren Heintjes applying for writ of habeas corpus.

For the reasons stated by Judge M. Fleming, there is no merit to the application.
Exhibit  32.1
                                                                  -------------

                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                              A Nevada corporation

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of AlphaTrade.com. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Penny
Perfect, Chief Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.




         Dated: May 20, 2009                      /s/ Penny Perfect
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  Its: Chief Executive Officer


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
         other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
         signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of
         this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
         retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are
         accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely 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) and is not being
         filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.














                                Exhibit 32.1 - 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,111
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         177
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             5,465
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 57,316
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             0
<LOANS>                                    298,246
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,950
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             371,970
<DEPOSITS>                                 256,347
<SHORT-TERM>                                     0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,994
<LONG-TERM>                                 74,435
<COMMON>                                     1,967
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             371,970
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             10,627
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,914
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            12,541
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,488
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,135
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        6,406
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             612
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,843
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,745
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (234)
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,511
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                3.14
<LOANS-NON>                                     38
<LOANS-PAST>                                     0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,913
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1
<RECOVERIES>                                    38
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,950
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0


</TABLE>
#### NORTHEAST MISSISSIPPI COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, INC. v. C. W. SANDERS.

No. 49366.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 21, 1977.

Richard B. Booth, Aberdeen, Tubb, Stevens & Morrison, Thomas J. Tubb, T. Murray Tubb, West Point, for appellant.

Michael Malski, Amory, Gary L. Carna-than, Tupelo, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and LEE, JJ., and JACK B. WELDY, Commissioner.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; L. T. Senter, Jr., Judge.

AFFIRMED.

BOWLING, J., took no part.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 5, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10277

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRANDON M. HOLLYWOOD, also known as Swap, 

also known as Earl,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CR-78-13-N

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

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brandon M. Hollywood appeals his guilty plea conviction and

sentence for aiding and abetting the distribution of and

distributing less than five grams of crack cocaine in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Hollywood contends that the district court erred when it

denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. “[A] district

court may, in its discretion, permit withdrawal [of a guilty

plea] before sentencing if the defendant can show a ‘fair and
No. 04-10277

-2-

just reason.’” United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th

Cir. 2003) (citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d)(2)); see also United

States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984). The

district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied

Hollywood’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See Powell, 354

F.3d at 370. 

Further, Hollywood contends that the district court erred in 

determining the quantity of drugs attributable to him as relevant

conduct. He also contends that the district court erred when it

increased his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a weapon in connection with a

drug-trafficking offense. Hollywood’s sentence was not

determined based on the drug quantity calculation or the twolevel increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Instead,

Hollywood’s sentence was determined based on his status as a

career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Therefore, these

arguments are irrelevant. 

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
TO: RCRA Docket EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0426

FROM: Richard Huggins Jr.
On October 26, 2011, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) staff met with representatives and members of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) to discuss the retail sector’s challenges they face in complying with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Some of the specific topics discussed were episodic generation, hazardous waste determination, electronics, aerosol cans, pharmaceuticals, and reverse logist ics.

Attendees:
Ross Elliot, Liz Resek, Richard Huggins Jr., Marilyn Goode, Kristin Fitzgerald, Karen Pollard, Priscilla Halloran, Jim O’Leary, Jessica Young (ORCR) , David Nicholas (PARMS)
Adam Siege l, Kelly Kolb, Ben Hobbs (RILA)
Mike Dalton, Ryan Willia ms, Mike Maddocks (The Home Depot)
Rick Leahy (Walmart)
Kate Cohen (Safeway)

Jordan Nance, Micah Thompson (Advance Auto Parts)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 45690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22865]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #2975, Amdt. 1]


State of Colorado

    In accordance with a notice from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency dated August 12, 1997, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby 
amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 
on July 28, 1997 and continuing through August 12, 1997.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is September 30, 1997 and for 
economic injury the termination date is May 1, 1998.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: August 20, 1997.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-22865 Filed 8-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 31.1

              CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Gunther Than, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of View Systems,
Inc.;

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 statement made, in light of the circumstances under which 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 report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.



                                      /s/ Gunther Than
Date: May 13, 2004                  ____________________________________
                                    Gunther Than, Chief Executive Officer
#### Re Ronnie PARKER v. STATE of Alabama. Ex parte Ronnie Parker.

77-545.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 30, 1978.

Mark B. Poison, Birmingham, for petitioner.

No brief for the State, respondent.

EMBRY, Justice.

We deny the writ because it is clear from the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion, 360 So.2d 344, that this offense occurred at least after 6:30 P.M. on December 19, 1974, which we know to be nighttime.

We do not necessarily agree with the rule announced in the opinion to the effect that nighttime, as it relates to burglary, begins at sunset. See footnote one in *Gaskin v. State,*53 Ala.App. 64, 297 So.2d 388 (1974).

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR DIRECTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. A DEVELOPMENT
STAGE COMPANY, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             918
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1418
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,952
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,031
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,469
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,190
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,109<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,109)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,109)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,109)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)<F2>
<FN>
<F1>OPERATING EXPENSE 5,109; R&D 0
<F2>DILUTIVE EFFECT LESS THAN REPORTABLE LEVEL
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Henry Cleveland BARBER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-250.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 15, 1971.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

LILES, Judge.

Defendant, appellant here, Henry Cleveland Barber, was charged by way of information with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny. He was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to a term of six months to five years by the trial judge.

Appellant raises five points here, however, only the first is worthy of comment. *3That is, that the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion to strike the testimony relating to a building located in a place different from that where the alleged breaking and entering occurred pursuant to the statement of particulars. During the trial the defendant filed a motion to strike all testimony concerning evidence of breaking and entering of a building in the 600 Block of Tenth Street, since the bill of' particulars indicated the address for the breaking and entering to be at 720 Tenth ’Street, Palmetto, Florida. The court denied the motion and as has been stated above this was one of the grounds for appeal.

The purpose of a bill of particulars is merely to give the defendant notice of the particular acts relied upon by the state to establish the crime charged, in order that the defendant will have a proper opportunity to prepare a defense. Middleton v. State, 74 Fla. 234, 76 So. 785 (1917); Hunter v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 577. In deciding whether a variance between the information and the bill of particulars is fatal to the judgment it is necessary to determine whether the defendant may have been misled or embarrassed in the preparation or presentation of his defense. Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360, 363 (1926). Fitzgerald v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 227 So.2d 45.

The record in the instant case shows that the correct address and the name of the establishment involved were shown in the information. The trial judge also noted that a letter was sent to the defense giving the correct address. This letter was sent several days after the bill of particulars was furnished. We find nothing in the record to indicate the defense was misled or embarrassed in the preparation or presentation of its case.

For these reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 07-2272 FRANCIS HANNON, Plaintiff, Appellant,

RAYMOND COOK; SEAN MILLIKEN; WAYNE D. CROSBY; LAWRENCE M. MCARTHUR; KEVIN KING; HENRY LAPLANTE; WILLIAM WHITE; CHRISTOPHER DEMARCO; ANGEL PIMENTAL; JOSEPH LODICO;

STEVEN BALSAVICH; and EDWARD KEITH,

Plaintiffs,

v . JEFFREY BEARD and MARYJANE HESSE, Defendants, Appellees,

MICHAEL T. MALONEY; PETER ALLEN; KRISTIE LADOUCEUR; KENNETH DEORSEY; PAUL DUFORD; JEFFREY GRIMES; RICHARD MEDEIROS; GILBERT LEMON, II; JOHN DOES 1-50; CLARK COLOR LAB; VINCENT MOONEY; MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; FREDERICK CALLENDAR; RICHARD MCARTHUR; JAMES SULLIVAN; GARY FYFE; ROBERT KOLBER; and HERBERT BERGER-HERSHKOWITZ, Defendants.

ERRATA The opinion of this court issued on April 28, 2008 is amended as follows: The following sentence contained on page 4, lines 18-19 is deleted: “Hannon states that this fact was confirmed by prison personnel with whom he spoke.”