alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016300EN.01005001.xml

| 18.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/50

---

P8_TA(2015)0002

EU-Seychelles agreement on access for fishing vessels to waters of Mayotte ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 January 2015 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of the Seychelles on access for fishing vessels flying the flag of the Seychelles to waters and marine biological resources of Mayotte, under the jurisdiction of the European Union (07911/2014 — C8-0008/2014 — 2014/0079(NLE))

(Consent)

(2016/C 300/11)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (07911/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (07911/2014),

| — | having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of the Seychelles on access for fishing vessels flying the flag of the Seychelles to waters and marine biological resources of Mayotte, under the jurisdiction of the European Union (07953/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of the Seychelles on access for fishing vessels flying the flag of the Seychelles to waters and marine biological resources of Mayotte, under the jurisdiction of the European Union (07953/2014),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), and paragraph 7, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0008/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), and paragraph 7, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0008/2014),

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, and paragraph 2, and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, and paragraph 2, and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A8-0055/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A8-0055/2014),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of the Seychelles. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of the Seychelles.

---
# C_2013208EN.01000201.xml

| 23.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6965 — Carlyle/AlpInvest Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 208/03

On 17 July 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6965. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6965. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit
13.1







PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Annual Report of CalPetro Tankers (Bahamas II) Limited (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the annual period ended December 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Tor Olav Trøim, the Principal Executive Officer 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 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.





A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.







Date: May
20, 2009




/s/ Tor Olav
Trøim


Tor Olav
Trøim


Principal
Executive Officer
## United States Court of App eals F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 24 64

__ __ __ __ __ _ Ch au tauq ua Gues t Ho m e, In c., * * App el la nt , * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s * Dis tri ctCo ur t fo r th e v. * Nor th ern Dis tri ctof I owa . * Tan du s US, LLC, * [UNPUBLISHED] * App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Subm it te d: Ju ne 21 , 20 12 Fi le d: Ju ne 28 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re LOKEN, BOW MAN, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM. Ch au tauq ua Gue st Hom e, In c. ( C h au tauqua ) ap pe al s fo ll owi ng th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of it s co m pl ai nt as se rti ng st at e-l aw cl ai m s ag ai ns t Tan du s US, LLC 1 (Tan du s)

. Ch au tauq ua or ig in al ly br ou gh t th is act io n in st at e co ur t, an d Tan du s rem ov ed it to fed eral co ur t
. C ha ut au qu a th en m ov ed fo r a rem an d of th e cas e ba ck to st at e co ur t, an d Tan du s m ov ed to di sm is s th e act io n, or fo r a st ay , as se rti ng th at th e di sp ut e The Hon or ab le Edwar d J. McM an us , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t he 1 Nor th ern Dis tri ctof I owa .was su bjec t to arb it rat io n. Th e d i s tri ct co ur t th erea fte r si m ul ta ne ou sl y de ni ed Ch au tauq ua ’s r em an d m ot io n, an d gr an te d Tan du s’s m ot io n to d is m is s, bu t di d no t in di cat e whe th er t he di sm is sa l was wit h o r wit ho ut pre jud ic e. Afte r care fu l rev ie w, se e Palmer v. Ill

. Far mer s In s. Co

. , 66 6 F.3 d 10 81 , 10 83 (8 th Cir . 20 12 ) (d e n ov o re vi ew of gra nt of m ot io n to di sm is s) ; Bor ntra ge r v. Cen t. St at es Se

. an d Sw

. Area s Pen si on Fun d , 57 7 F.3 d 91 3, 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (d e no vo rev ie w of di st ric t co ur t’s su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ), th is co ur t affi rm s, bu t m od ifi es th e d is m is sa l t o b e wit ho ut pre jud ic e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF NET ASSETS; STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000801348
<NAME> PRUCO LIFE VARIABLE CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY ACCOUNT

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             113,252,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 113,252,312
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               113,252,312
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,767,917
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  241,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,525,997
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,525,997
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,525,997
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2015022EN.01001101.xml

| 23.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/11

---

DECISION TO CLOSE THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE AFTER WITHDRAWAL BY MEMBER STATE

State aid — Italy

(Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)

Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU — Withdrawal of notification

State aid SA.33424 (12/C) (ex 11/N) — Integrated project CCS Sulcis

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 22/05)

The Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, initiated on 20 November 2012 (1) in respect of the measure referred to above, recording that Italy has withdrawn its notification on 17 July 2014.

1

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 23.1.2013, p. 12.

1

---
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC SPA RENTAL, LLC, d/b/a/ 

### MSI AVIATION, Complainant, 

### v. 

### SOMERSET - PULASKI COUNTY AIRPORT BOARD, Respondent. 

### FAA Docket 

### No. 16-13-02



### NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before Federal Aviat ion Administration (FAA) based on the above

-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with 

### FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-AssistedAirport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Final Agency Decision will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to May 31,2016. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

Eduardo A. Angeles Associate Administrator

for Airports

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 4, 20 16 I ca used to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension of Time to May 31, 2016 for FAA Docket No. 16-13-02 addressed to: Counsel for Complainant: Konrad Kuczak 130 West Second Street, Suite 1 010 Dayton, OH 45402
Counsel fo r Respondent: Rachel Owsley Bethany A. Breetz Stites 

### & Harb ison, PLLC 400 West Market Street, Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202
Hand delivered to: FAA Part 16 A irport Proceedings Dock et FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0- 1 00

laudia Roberts Office of Ai rport Compliance and Management Analysis
Motion Granted and Order filed September 2, 2021

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00463-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.B., AKA J.J.B, a Child

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-00057J

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a parental termination case.

The notice of appeal was filed August 23, 2021. Appellant has established 

indigence or is presumed to be indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a). The 

reporter’s record was due within 10 days after the notice of appeal was filed. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). On August 25, 2021, a requested extension of 

time to file the reporter’s record was granted to September 7, 2021. The official

court reporter, Stephanie Wells, was notified no further extensions would be 

granted absent exceptional circumstances. 
On September 2, 2021, Stephanie Wells filed a second request to extend 

time to file the reporter’s record, until September 17, 2021. We GRANT the 

motion.

Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be 

brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is 

filed. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a). The trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.3(c). The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commence 

the preparation of the reporter’s record and must arrange for a substitute reporter, 

if necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(1). 

Accordingly, we further order Stephanie Wells, the official court reporter, to 

file the record in this appeal on or before September 17, 2021. If Stephanie 

Wells does not timely file the record as ordered, the court will issue an order 

requiring her to appear at a hearing to show cause why the record has not been 

timely filed and why she should not be held in contempt of court for failing to file 

the record as ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine and/or 

confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Poissant.
#### Inez KING, Appellant, v. LARGO LAKE VILLAS, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-167.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Naim Bruno, Appellant.

[735 NYS2d 774]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obús, J.), rendered March 3, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motions to suppress an oral statement and two written confessions made to the police were properly denied. All three statements were preceded by proper *Miranda*warnings and waivers. The brief interval between the warnings and the oral statement did not require renewed warnings *(People v Irizarry,*199 AD2d 180, *lv denied*83 NY2d 872). Under the totality of circumstances *(see, Arizona v Fulminante,*499 US 279; *People v Anderson,*42 NY2d 35, 38), the first written confession was not rendered involuntary by the circumstance that defendant was briefly in a state of partial undress due to the discovery of blood stains on several articles of his clothing, necessitating their removal for testing.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.
#### B. J. TINER et al. v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 54129.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 21, 1973.

In re: Aetna Life Insurance Co. applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo, 285 So.2d 813.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
Exhibit 4.2



 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated October 20, 2022, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2133 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-266215) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


October 20, 2022
**Use of Gridded Met in Dispersion Models** **9 th** **Conference on Air Quality Modeling Research Triangle Park, NC** **October 9 – 10, 2008 Second Essential Element** **“**Promote and facilitate the use of griddedmeteorological data including “state-ofpractice” National Weather Service (NWS)meteorological analyses to improvemodeling science and performance fornear-field modeling applications (permits,toxics, direct PM).**” – Tyler Fox, 8 th** **Conference on Air Quality Modeling, September 22, 2005.** **What Has Happened In the Interim?** **• OAQPS formed a gridded meteorological workgroup in 2005 to discuss sources and various uses of gridded** **meteorology in dispersion modeling. • EPA development of MM5-to-AERMOD tool in 2006.** **• EPA (Touma, Isakov, Brode, Cimorelli, & Anderson) publish MM5-AERMOD Philadelphia Study in 2007.** **• UNC development of MCIP-to-AERMOD prototype in 2007-2008.** **• EPA development of MM5-to-CALPUFF prototype in 2008.** **Where Do We Go from Here? • Complete development of software and** **documentation for gridded meteorological data conversion tools.** **• Develop testing protocols gridded met products in dispersion models.** **• Development of guidance on the application of gridded meteorological** **products in dispersion modeling applications.**
* 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. 01-21176

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFONSO GARCIA-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-169-ALL

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

December 12, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfonso Garcia-Perez appeals his guilty plea conviction and

sentence for being found in the United States after deportation

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Garcia argues that the

sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are

unconstitutional on their face and as applied in his case. He

contends that the unconstitutional portions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326

should be severed from the statute. He asks us to vacate his
No. 01-21176

-2-

conviction and sentence, reform the judgment to reflect a

conviction only under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and remand his case for

resentencing under that provision. Alternatively, he asks us to

simply vacate his sentence and remand his case for resentencing

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

 Garcia acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he

asserts that the decision has been called into doubt by Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90 (2000). He seeks to preserve

his argument for further review.

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly,

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

BERNARD MONTGOMERY , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 3

- 931

[ July 13, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 00(a) motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Martin S. Fein , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 09

- 17834CF10A and 08

- 5334CF10A

.
Bernard Montgomery

, Fort Lauderdale , pro se.

No appearance required for appellee

.

P ER C URI A M

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH , C.J.

, M AY and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
* 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

October 19, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30199

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KENNETH WAYNE PEARSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:01-CR-10012-3

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Wayne Pearson appeals the sentence he received after

this court remanded his case for resentencing in light of United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Pearson argues that the

district court misapplied the Guidelines by not granting him a

two-level reduction in his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2

for his mitigating role. Given that Pearson’s role was not

peripheral to the Brown Drug Organization, the denial of such an

adjustment was not clearly erroneous. See United States v.

Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006); United Stated v.
No. 06-30199

-2-

Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 204 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.

Ct. 268 (2005). 

The district court’s 188-month sentence, which was a

deviation from the Guidelines, was not an abuse of discretion. 

The district court articulated its reasons for the sentence and

those reasons reflected the totality of the factors set forth in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Armendariz, 451 F.3d

352, 358 n.5 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d

704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). 

AFFIRMED.