alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Position

Proposed EBRD Investment: Olam International

November 16, 2017

The United States appreciates that this project is expected to create new opportunities for 

producers in remote and underdeveloped regions of Turkey and Georgia. 

However, the United States believes this investment delivers little financial or other 

additionality. Olam is a leading, well-capitalized, global agribusiness company which maintains 

sufficient liquidity to manage its working capital needs. 

Moreover, this loan would push Olam’s cumulative IFI financing to roughly $400 million since 

2013. The United States is not convinced Olam needs more MDB financing, and the United 

States abstained on an African Development Bank investment in Olam earlier this year. 

Finally, given the size of the company and the sector in which it operates, the United States sees

the risk of environmental problems as high, and believes the EBRD might incur reputational 

risks with the investment. The project document notes the company attracts a high level of 

media attention.

The United States wishes to be recorded as abstaining on this project, due its limited 

additionality.
May 9 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EMERSON HANDY , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00632

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below, and having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is REFORMED , to delete the dollar amount assessed as costs

. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as REFORMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Jimmy A. COZART, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-664.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 21, 1973.

Jimmy A. Cozart, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the ap*126peal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### Reyes Arida CONTE, Cross-Petitioner, v. CONFEDERATION LIFE ASSOCIATION, a Canadian corporation, Cross-Respondent.

No. 41888.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 19, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1972.

Lyons, Canner & Smith, Miami, for cross-petitioner.

Phillip G. Newcomm, of Shutts & Bowen, Miami, for cross-respondent.

BOYD, Justice.

This cause came before us on petition and cross-petition for writ of certiorari to *131review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 254 So.2d 45. The petition was denied without argument by Order dated April 4, 1972, 261 So.2d 177 (Fla.), and the cause retained for argument on the cross-petition.

Cross-petitioner questions the action of the District Court in reversing the trial court’s award of $4,000.00 United States dollars, the face value of a twenty-year endowment contract issued by petitioner in Cuba. In reversing the portion of the judgment expressed in United States dollars for the plaintiff, the District Court stated:1

> “On remand judgment for plaintiff for the matured value of the policy should be expressed in a dollar value equivalent to the proper conversion rate from pesos.”

The foregoing holding of the District Court was rendered prior to this Court’s decision in de Lara v. Confederation Life Association,2 and is in conflict therewith. In *de Larcij*we held that beneficiaries under a life insurance policy issued in Cuba to a Cuban National could recover the face amount of the policy in the United States in United States dollars. In *de*Lara, as in the instant case, the policy provided that all sums payable under the policy “shall be paid in lawful currency of the United States of America.” However, some years after the policy in the instant case and the one in *de Lara*were issued, Cuban monetary laws were enacted which required that all policies be payable in pesos only.

The Cuban monetary laws were held binding and effective in this country in Confederation Life Association v. Ugalde,3 because of the International Monetary Fund Agreement. But Cuba withdrew from the International Monetary Fund Agreement effective April 2, 1964. Thereafter, this Court in Confederation Life Association v. Vega y Arminan,4 approved the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District,5 holding that since Cuba had withdrawn from the International Monetary Fund Agreement, Cuban laws would no longer be given extra-territorial effect under the terms of the Bretton Woods Agreement.

Accordingly, certiorari is granted^and that portion of the District Court’s opinion reversing the award of the face value of the policy in United States dollars, is quashed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the trial court’s award in the amount of $4,000.00.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

1

. 254 So.2d 45, 47 (Fla.App.3rd 1971).

2

. 257 So.2d 42 (Fla.1972).

3

. 164 So.2d 1 (Fla.1964).

4

. 211 So.2d 169 (Fla.1968).

5

. 207 So.2d 33 (Fla.App.3rd 1968).
#### Vasco HOWARD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43212.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 7, 1973.

Cause dismissed.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Esther Lee HOLLIER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sherman J. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 3536.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 13, 1971.

J. Lyle DeBellevue, Crowley, for defendant-appellant.

V. V. Young, Crowley, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SAVOY, HOOD and CUL-PEPPER, JJ.

HOOD, Judge.

Defendant, Sherman J. Smith, appealed from judgments rendered by the trial court on February 11 and February 16, 1971.

*498The appellant has not filed a brief in this court, and neither he nor his attorney appeared on the date the case was scheduled for argument and submission. No explanation has been given for his failure to appear. Under those circumstances, this court considers the appeal as having been abandoned and has concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. See Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule VII, Section 5(b), 8 LSA-R.S., page 392.

The appeal taken in this suit by defendant, Sherman J. Smith, thus is dismissed at his costs.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Quest Water Global, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Peter Miele, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





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 Registrant.





Dated:  April 15, 2013





By:        /s/ Peter Miele


Peter Miele


Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Director
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Marianna J. ANTHONY, Respondent.

No. 41042.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 7, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 6, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 246 So.2d 600.

ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, C. J., and BOYD, J., dissent.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2324 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2324

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2800 South Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, as the ``D. Edwina 
                        Stephens Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2021

Mr. Lawson of Florida (for himself, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Dunn, Mrs. Cammack, 
Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Waltz, Mrs. Murphy of Florida, Mr. Posey, Mr. Soto, 
  Mrs. Demings, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Crist, Ms. 
 Castor of Florida, Mr. C. Scott Franklin of Florida, Mr. Steube, Mr. 
   Mast, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Lois Frankel of Florida, Mr. 
Deutch, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart, 
Mr. Gimenez, and Ms. Salazar) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2800 South Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, as the ``D. Edwina 
                        Stephens Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. D. EDWINA STEPHENS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2800 South Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``D. Edwina Stephens Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``D. Edwina 
Stephens Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 333-185396) of ECA Marcellus Trust I and in the Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-185397) of ECA Marcellus Trust I of our reports
dated March 15, 2013, with respect to the financial statements of ECA Marcellus Trust I, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of ECA Marcellus Trust I, included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2012.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Ernst & Young LLP


Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
March 15, 2013

---



QuickLinks
#### STECKLOFF v. OLYMPIC FINANCIAL CORP.

No. 38401.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 221 So.2d 243.
#### Robert G. KERRIGAN and Sharon S. Kerrigan, his wife, Petitioners, v. Howard THOMAS and Shirley M. Thomas, his wife, Respondents.

No. 44425.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 30, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 281 So.2d 410.

CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur-
#### Robert Allen BREWER, M.D., Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Appellee.

No. 68-398.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Dec. 17, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Lawrence ZIMMERMAN, Petitioner, v. W. Rogers TURNER, Judge, Criminal Court of Record, Orange County, Florida, and Richard H. Adams, Assistant County Solicitor, Orange County, Florida, Respondents.

No. 69-847.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Dec. 19, 1969.

Mandamus denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2 – CFO Certification**








**ROYAL
      INVEST INTERNATIONAL CORP.**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADDED BY**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Royal Invest
      International Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the
      quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nathan Lapkin, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by
      ss.
      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 results of operations of the Company as of and
      for
      the period covered by the Report.





By:
      /s/ Nathan Lapkin


Nathan
      Lapkin


Chief
      Financial Officer





September
      18, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 ("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 required by Section 906, has been
      provided to Royal Invest International Corp., and will be retained by Royal
      Invest International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO . 09
- 1 7
- 00 071
- C V



### ____________________ WATERSTONE ON LAKE CONROE, INC. AND STEVE BOWEN , Appellant s V. DEE WILLIAMS AND ANDY WILLIAMS , Appellee s

________________________________________ _______________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 284 th Di strict Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No . 16
- 09
- 10736
- CV

________________________________________ ________________ _____________ ORDER On March 16, 2017, the Court stayed all further trial court proceedings and discovery in Cause Number 16

- 09

- 10736

- CV until our opinion issue s in the accelerated appeal. The appellees, Dee Williams and Andy Williams, subsequently notified the partie s and the Court that they are withdrawing their request for disclosure to Virgin Homes, Inc. They suggest their withdrawal of the request for disclosure will moot a related mandamus proceeding, No. 09

- 17

- 00077

- CV, In re2

Virgin Homes, Inc. In response, the appellees and Virgin Homes, Inc. contend the withdrawal of the request for disclosure cannot moot the mandamus proceeding while the trial court’s order of February 28, 2017 , remains in effect compelling Virgin Homes, Inc. to respond to the request for disc losure. Unless it is amended by this Court, our order of March 16, 2017, prevents the trial court from considering the appellee s ’ request to withdraw their request for disclosure and reconsidering its February 28, 2017, order compelling Virgin Homes,
Inc . to respond to the request for disclosure. See Tex. R. App. P. 29.5 . After considering the letters filed by the parties, we conclude that our order of March 16, 2017, should be amended to allow Dee Williams and Andy Williams to withdraw their request for disclosure and to allow the trial court to amend or dissolv e its order of February 28, 2017. See id. It is ORDERED that all further trial court proceedings and discovery in Cause
N umber 16

- 09

- 10736

- CV , other than proceedings to withdraw requests for disclosure and to amend or dissolve the trial court’s order compelling responses to requests for disclosure, are STAYED until our Opinion issues or until further order of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 29.3; see also Tex. R. App. P. 29.5.
ORDER ENTERED March 2 1 , 2017

. PER CURIAM Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson , JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Sara Lee Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended April 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L.M. (Theo) de Kool, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial and Administrative Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.



Dated: May 6, 2005



|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ L.M. (Theo) de Kool,                                              
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial andAdministrative Officer
254 La. 768

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Louise S. KORNS v. The BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF the CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 49964.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 1969.

In re: Touro Infirmary applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 223 So.2d 505.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the Court of Appeal judgment.
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51010 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. G AB RI EL M AR Q U EZ , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 08- C R
- 62- 5 B ef ore W IE N E R , B E N AV ID E S , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Th e at t or neyappoi nt ed t o r epr es ent G abr i elM ar quez has m ove d f orl eave t o w i t hdr aw and has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d ers v. C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 ( 196 7) . M arqu ez ha s not f i l ed a respon se. O u r i n dep en den trevi ew of th e re c o r d a n d co u n s e l’ s b r ie f d is c lo s e s n o n o n fr iv o lo u s is s u e fo ra p p e a l. A c c o r d in g ly , c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w is G R A N T E D , co u n s e l is e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e rr e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e AP P EA L I S DI S M I S S ED . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
Proposed International Finance Corporation (IFC) Investment

in Niko Resources Ltd. 

(South Asia Region)

December 19, 2013

Although the United States acknowledges the importance of supporting India and 

Bangladesh in diversifying their energy sources and overcoming electricity deficiencies through 

private sector-driven solutions, the United States did not think there was sufficient additionality 

to justify the high level of risk in this project.

Given the fact that Niko’s difficult financial situation is mainly driven by internal deficiencies 

and an unsustainable and aggressive growth model over the past years, the United States is not

convinced that IFC should engage in these kinds of high risk rescue operations. Whereas the 

United States generally promotes IFC’s anti-cyclical role in developing countries e.g. in 

economic crisis situations, the presence of several specialized investors in this investment shows

however that there is already robust interest from the private sector to engage without IFC’s

support.

Niko has had significant problems with environmental and social management in the past, 

including two major well blowouts, which partially contributed to the prepayment of the

original IFC loan in 2006. While the United States would agree that applying the IFC 

Performance Standards could help to improve socio-ecological performance of Niko, radical

changes are needed to upgrade their systems. The United States is concerned that in

the current financial distress situation the evolving senior management team will have difficulty 

bringing the company into compliance with IFC’s requirements in the short run. In this regard

the United States also notes that Niko does not have full control over social and environmental

related issues given that part of their assets is operated through third parties.

The United States would also like to emphasize the reputational and economic risks of this

investment arising from the legal and regulatory uncertainties around the major assets of Niko

as presented in the Board document as well as the bribery case in 2005.

Stemming from the concerns expressed above. the United States is not convinced that 

IFC’s engagement in this investment is a smart risk. The United States wishes to be recorded as 

abstaining.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ameresco, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, George P. Sakellaris, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 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 results of operations of the Company.


Date:  March 31, 2011/s/ George P. SakellarisGeorge P. SakellarisPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)