alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 4/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.004.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 4 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 547 January 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.004.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 4

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 547 January 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 004/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5983 — Tyco Electronics/ADC Telecommunications) (1) | 1 |
| 2011/C 004/02 | Initiation of proceedings (Case COMP/M.5969 — SCJ/Sara Lee) (Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004) (1) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 004/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5983 — Tyco Electronics/ADC Telecommunications) (1)

1

2011/C 004/02

Initiation of proceedings (Case COMP/M.5969 — SCJ/Sara Lee) (Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004) (1)

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 004/03 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| 2011/C 004/04 | Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 27 Member States applicable as from 1 January 2011(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1)) | 4 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 004/03

Euro exchange rates

3

2011/C 004/04

Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 27 Member States applicable as from 1 January 2011(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))

(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 004/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6049 — Compagnie de Saint-Gobain/Trakya/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 5 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2011/C 004/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6049 — Compagnie de Saint-Gobain/Trakya/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

5

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Parent

Coastal Financial Corporation
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                               State of
Subsidiary                                  Percentage Owned                   Incorporation
----------                                  ----------------                   -------------
<S>                                         <C>                                <C>
Coastal Federal Savings Bank                100%                               United States

Coastal Federal Mortgage, Inc.              100%                               South Carolina

Coastal Investor Services, Inc.             100%                               South Carolina

Coastal Technology Solutions                100%                               South Carolina

Coastal Real Estate Investment
 Corporation (3)                            100%                               North Carolina
                                                                   
Coastal Mortgage Bankers and                                       
 Realty Co., Inc. (1)                       100%                               South Carolina
                                                                   
Shady Forest Development                                           
 Corporation (2)                            100%                               South Carolina
                                                                   
Sherwood Development                                               
 Corporation (2)                            100%                               South Carolina
                                                                   
Ridge Development                                                  
 Corporation (2)                            100%                               South Carolina
                                                                   
501 Development                                                    
 Corporation (2)                            100%                               South Carolina
                                                                   
North Beach Investment,                                            
 Inc. (2)                                   100%                               South Carolina
</TABLE>
-----------------------                                  

(1)  First tier subsidiaries of Coastal Federal.

(2)  Second tier  subsidiaries of Coastal Federal and first tier subsidiaries of
     Coastal Mortgage.

(3)  First  tier  operating   subsidiary  of  Coastal   Federal   Savings  Bank,
     consolidated with Coastal Federal for Regulatory Reporting.
Exhibit
31.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
302 OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Certification of
CEO





I, Martin
B. Bloch, certify that:





1.  I
have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Frequency
Electronics, Inc.;





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;





4.  The
registrant’s other certifying officer 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))and internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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)  Designed
such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;





(c)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’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;





(d)  Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





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):





(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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.




/s/ Martin B. Bloch
                
                October
      22, 2009Martin B. BlochChief Executive Officer
In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: March 8, 2022

S22A0533. EASON et al. v. LUNDY.

 PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion 

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

Affirmed without opinion. All the Justices concur, except 

Colvin, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 11    
    
COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE    
    
<TABLE>    
    
<S>                                <C>       <C>    
    
                                   For the nine months    
                                   ended September 30,    
                                   1996       1995                    
    
                                   ---------  ---------    
    
Net (loss) income                 ($  4,343) $      944    
    
Shares:    
    
Weighted average number of shares of     
  common stock outstanding        3,769,777   3,743,106     
    
Shares assumed issued (less shares    
 assumed purchased for treasury) on     
 stock option agreements              8,844      26,302    
    
Rounding                                379        (408)    
                                   ---------   ---------              

                                  3,779,000   3,769,000    
                                   =========  =========    
Net (loss) income per Common Share ($  1.15)  $    0.25    
                                   =========  =========    
    
</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 655

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to make crop quality reduction disaster payments to producers of the 1992 crop of corn, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 1993

Mr. BARCIA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Agriculture

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to make crop quality

reduction disaster payments to producers of the 1992

crop of corn, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CROP QUALITY REDUCTION DISASTER PAY4 MENTS FOR 1992 CROP OF CORN.

5 The matter under the heading ‘‘COMMODITY

6 CREDIT CORPORATION’’ under the heading ‘‘DE7 PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE’’ of chapter III of

8 title I of Public Law 102–229 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note) is

9 amended by inserting before the period at the end the fol-
2

HR 655 IH

1 lowing: ‘‘: Provided further, That the Secretary of Agri2 culture shall make crop quality reduction disaster pay3 ments to producers of the 1992 crop of corn under the

4 same terms and conditions as are specified in section 2245

5 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of

6 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note)’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                    Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



         I, Robert Panico, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer), certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Gateway Energy Corporation and
its subsidiaries for the periods presented.


Date:  August 10, 2006                      /s/  Robert Panico
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Robert Panico
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 (Principal Executive Officer)
Order filed, January 29, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00003-CR

NO. 14-14-00004-CR

NO. 14-14-00005-CR

____________

OCTAVIANO ISRALEL SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1376038, 1376039, 1376040

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due January 21, 2014. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.
We order Mattie Kimble, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

           NOT FILED PURSUANT TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Friedman Industries,
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Ben Harper, Senior Vice President-Finance and
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 Report fully complies with the requirement 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: November 13, 2002

                                            By /s/ BEN HARPER
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                Name: Ben Harper
                                                Title:  Senior Vice
                                                        President-Finance and
                                                        Secretary/Treasurer
#### J. D. DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-420.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 10, 1973.

*312Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Bruce J. Daniels and Charles W. Mus-grove, Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MORROW, RUSSELL O., Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from the Criminal Court of Record of Orange County, Florida. The appellant was convicted of possession of heroin and also of the sale of heroin.

At the trial, evidence was admitted, over objection, that the appellant sold heroin to a law enforcement officer on May IS, 1971; that appellant was charged on two counts, one sale and one of possession and was acquitted of sale and convicted of possession. The sale and possession of heroin by the appellant in the instant case, which resulted in his conviction of two similar charges, took place a few days after the May IS, 1971 sale.

The question presented is whether “similar fact evidence” of a prior sale can be admitted where appellant has been acquitted of sale of heroin but convicted of possession of heroin.

Florida law has permitted the admission of such evidence even though there was an acquittal. (Blackburn v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 208 So.2d 625.)

The U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals holds to the contrary. Wingate v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1972, 464 F.2d 209 states as follows:

> H< H1 H* * H< H<

> “We do not hold that the Florida evi-dentiary rule which permits evidence of other offenses to be admitted to show intent, knowledge or common scheme or plan violates due process.”

> Hi * Hi Hi Hi *

> “We hold that under *Ashe*[Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469] where the state in an otherwise proper prosecution seeks for any purpose to relitigate an issue which was determined in a prior prosecution of the same parties, then the evidence offered for such a relitigation must be excluded from trial and the state must be precluded from asserting that the issue should be determined in any way inconsistent with the prior determination.”

> * * * * * *

The Wingate case in effect holds that the admission of evidence of a crime on which acquittal has been rendered, violates the collateral estoppel doctrine.

There is a factual difference between the instant case and that of Wingate. Here the appellant was convicted of possession of heroin in the former case that supplied the evidence of “similar fact” in the instant case.

We hold that where there has been a conviction of one of two charges tried together though there has been an acquittal on the other charge, the “similar fact evidence” is admissible.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment here appealed is affirmed.

OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 901

To ensure employee rights concerning the payment of union dues.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 16, 1993

Mr. LEWIS of Florida (for himself, Mr. BAKER of Louisiana, Mr.

ROHRABACHER, Mr. GOSS, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. DORNAN,

Mr. HYDE, and Mr. OXLEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To ensure employee rights concerning the payment of union

dues.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CONTINUATION OF POLICY REGARDING NOTI4 FICATION OF EMPLOYEE RIGHTS CONCERN5 ING PAYMENT OF UNION DUES.

6 Executive Order 12800 of April 13, 1992, and all De7 partment of Labor directives and regulations regarding

8 notification of employee rights concerning the payment of

9 union dues, as in effect on January 1, 1993, shall remain

10 in effect unless changed by law.
2

•HR 901 IH

Æ
Negative Declaration

Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations

The District has reviewed its permit files and the emission inventory for its federal Clean Air Plan, as well as business listings and telephone yellow pages, and has contacted potentially impacted businesses, and has determined that there are no stationary sources or emitting facilities for the following CTG category. The District also does not anticipate that any known businesses will propose constructing these sources in the future.

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT TITLE DOCUMENT TYPE DOCUMENT

NUMBER Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations CTG EPA-453/R-97-004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0497

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

RICHARD SORIA, 

Defendant and Appellant, 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time until November 19, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 6 2021

10/06/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0497
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           44,052,058
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    10,057,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2,209,452
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 58,162,784
<PP&E>                                            4,516,891
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2,786,755
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  218,279,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            73,349,221
<BONDS>                                          36,244,961
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                          1,011,941
<OTHER-SE>                                      239,135,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    218,279,415
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                334,681,733
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   263,500,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 57,717,203
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,766,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  10,698,344
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5,540,231
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5,158,113
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5,158,113
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
                                               


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 97-4307

________________

United States of America, *

Appellee, *

v. * District Court for the

Andrew M. Jaskiewicz, also known *

as Andrew Maurice Hart, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant, *

John Doe, or current unknown *

occupants; Jane Doe, or current *

unknown occupants, *

Defendants. *

*

* Appeal from the United States

* District of Nebraska

*

*

*

________________

Submitted: November 2, 1998

 Filed: November 6, 1998

________________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

________________

PER CURIAM.
 The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Chief Judge, United States District 1

Court for the District of Nebraska.

2

Andrew Mark Jaskiewicz a/k/a Andrew Maurice Hart appeals from the district

court's adverse grant of summary judgment in an action in ejectment. Having carefully 1

reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude that the district court's

judgment is correct. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT