alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015027EN.01000302.xml

| 27.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/3

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Modification of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 27/04)

| Member State | Portugal |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Lisbon – Horta – Lisbon
  Funchal – Ponta Delgada – Funchal
  Lisbon – Santa Maria – Lisbon
  Lisbon – Pico – Lisbon |
| Original date of entry into force of the public service obligations | 19 December 2010 |
| Date of entry into force of modifications | 29 March 2015 |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained | For further information please contact:





  Instituto Nacional de Aviação Civil, I. P. |
| Rua B, Edifícios 4, 5 e 6 — Aeroporto de Lisboa |
| 1749-034 Lisbon |
| PORTUGAL |
| Tel. +351 218423500 |
| Fax +351 218423582 |
| E-mail: dre.am@inac.pt |
| Internet: www.inac.pt |

Member State

Portugal

Route concerned

Lisbon – Horta – Lisbon

Funchal – Ponta Delgada – Funchal

Lisbon – Santa Maria – Lisbon

Lisbon – Pico – Lisbon

Original date of entry into force of the public service obligations

19 December 2010

Date of entry into force of modifications

29 March 2015

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained

For further information please contact:

Instituto Nacional de Aviação Civil, I. P.

Rua B, Edifícios 4, 5 e 6 — Aeroporto de Lisboa

1749-034 Lisbon

PORTUGAL

Tel. +351 218423500

Fax +351 218423582

E-mail: dre.am@inac.pt

Internet: www.inac.pt

---
#### Joseph M. LATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-635.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 27, 1973.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, Bra-denton, for appellant.

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

PIERCE, Judge (Ret.).

Appellant Joseph M. Latson was tried and convicted in the Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record of the offense of possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit: heroin, and was thereupon sentenced to serve a term in the State Prison. He has appealed the judgment and sentence to this Court. The Public Defender appointed to represent Latson on this appeal filed brief in this Court in his behalf.

After reviewing the facts contained in the record, the Public Defender says in his Brief that he “has carefully examined the record on appeal and can find nothing which could arguably support an appeal”; wherefore he moves to be permitted to withdraw as attorney of record for appellant, citing as authority therefor the case of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.

The Public Defender has served a copy of his said Brief upon Appellant Latson, and on October 12, 1972, this Court entered order giving Latson thirty (30) days therefrom to file any additional brief he might desire, “calling the court’s attention to any matters that he feels should be considered in connection with the appeal in this cause”. No additional brief has been filed.

We have thereupon carefully examined the entire record on file here on behalf of appellant Latson, and find nothing therein sufficient tó justify a reversal of the judgment appealed. Accordingly the judgment is thereupon — ■

Affirmed.

HOBSON, J., concurs.

MANN, C. J., concurs specially.

MANN, Chief Judge

(concurring specially)-

I concur in affirmance on the present record. ■ I would point out, however, that in the trial court Latson’s counsel challenged the legality of jury selection in Hillsborough County. His appellate counsel did not pursue this question. However, it is being pursued in another case arising *497out of Hillsborough County, and if in that case Hillsborough County juries are declared to have been selected in an unlawful manner, Latson should then file for appellate review of this question pursuant to Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 239.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION of CEO and CFO 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 FS Energy and Power Fund (the “Company”) for the three months ended June 30, 2022, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), Michael C. Forman, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edward T. Gallivan, Jr., as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:


• the Form 10-Q of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and


• the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  August 11, 2022/s/ MICHAEL C. FORMANMichael C. FormanChief Executive Officer/s/ EDWARD T. GALLIVAN, JR.Edward T. Gallivan, Jr.  Chief Financial Officer
#### Stephen L. COOPER v. Myrna LANE et al.

No. 54314.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1974.

In re: Myrna Lane and State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., applying for Cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 286 So.2d 759.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
#### Eugene MOBLEY, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 72-309.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 27, 1973.

David A. Maney, and Richard Mul-holland, Tampa, for appellant.

Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey, Kinney & Boggs, Tampa, for appellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

Mobley’s wife was injured by an uninsured motorist. Mobley seeks a judgment declaring Allstate, his insurer, liable to him under the uninsured motorist clause1 for damages for loss of consortium. In a second count, he seeks damages. Allstate’s motion to dismiss was granted because “there is no separate cause of action by the husband for the society, companionship, consortium, assistance and services of the wife under the uninsured motorist coverage afforded by the policy alleged in the complaint.”

Without reaching possible defenses to the action or treating as “fact” allegations embodied in the answer of Allstate or in its brief, we hold simply that damages for loss

*496of consortium are as fully recoverable under an uninsured motorist clause as any other type of damages. Our Supreme Court has made it clear that the clause effectively substitutes the insured’s carrier for the negligent uninsured motorist. If that motorist is liable, there is coverage under the clause.2

Dismissal at this stage was erroneous, and the order is thereupon

Reversed.

HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

1

. “Damages for Bodily Injury Caused by Uninsured Automobiles

> “The company will pay all sums which the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death resulting therefrom, hereinafter called ‘bodily injury’, sustained by the insured, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured automobile; provided, for the purposes of this endorsement, determination as to whether the insured or such representative is legally entitled to recover such damages, and if so the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured or such representative and the company or, if they fail to agree may be made by arbitration.”

2

. Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Fla.1971, 252 So.2d 229.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 6453

REED ANTHONY KEVIN WRIGHT

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

RAYENA SHEPPARD

- OSWALD; BRIAN OSWALD; HEATHER HUBERT, in her individual and official capacities; SERGEANT SCOTT MATHENY, in his individual and official capacities; OFFICER M. SMOAK, in his individual and official capacities

,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

GREENVILLE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; CAROLINA CHILDREN’S HOUSE; ANTHONY WRIFFORD, in his individua l and official capacities; DICKERSON CENTER FOR CHILDREN, now known as Dickerson Children’s Advocacy Center Inc.; JANE HEMPHILL, in her individual and official capacities; CAYCE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT; OFFICER DREW PINCIARO, in his individual and officia l capacities; GREENVILLE RAPE CRISIS CENTER, now known as Julie Valentine Center; SHAUNA GALLOWAY, a/k/a Shauna Galloway

- Williams, in her individual and official capacities; WYFF4 GREENVILLE; HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; HEARST PROPERTIES INC.,

Defendants,

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT SOLICITOR,

Respondent

.2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 6:14

- cv

- 04646

- TMC )

Submitted : January 30, 2018 D ecided: February 16, 2018

Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Donald L. Smith, DONALD SMITH LAW FIRM, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellant. Russell W. Harter, Jr., Carly Davis, CHAPMAN, HARTER & HARTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; A. Johnston Cox, Janice Holmes, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Reed Anthony Kevin Wright appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants

on Wright’s third amended complaint alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution, in

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and malicious prosecution, in violation of South Carolina

law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Wright v. Sheppard

- Oswald , No. 6:14

- cv

04646

- TMC ( D.S.C . Mar. 9 & 10 , 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0458 IN THE MATTER OF: B.F., Respondent and Appellant. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 1 6 , 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 5 2024

10/07/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0458
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 17.1

             RESIGNATION OF CORPORATE DIRECTOR, OFFICER AND EMPLOYEE

      The Undersigned, William S. Estroff, after careful consideration and
solely for personal reasons, hereby resigns his position as President of
eMissions Testing , Inc. (the "Corporation"), his membership on the Board of
Directors of the Corporation, his employment with the Corporation held pursuant
to that certain Employment Agreement entered into by and between the Undersigned
and the Corporation as of June 1, 2000, and all other positions and offices held
by him with the Corporation, all effective as of the 15th day of September,
2000.

      Furthermore, the Undersigned hereby agrees to forever release and
discharge the Corporation (including its officers, directors and employees) and
its successors, assigns, representatives and heirs, and each of them, from and
against any and all liabilities, damages, suits, actions, causes of action,
costs and expenses, of every kind and nature, including without limitation,
legal fees and costs, incurred or suffered by the Undersigned arising out of or
as a consequence of his employment with the Corporation pursuant to that certain
Employment Agreement entered into by and between the Undersigned and the
Corporation as of June 1, 2000.

      This instrument shall (a) be governed by the substantive laws of the State
of Georgia and (b) be binding upon the undersigned and his successors, assigns,
representatives and heirs and shall inure to the benefit of the Corporation
(including its officers, directors and employees) and its successors, assigns,
representatives and heirs.

Dated as of the 15th day of September, 2000.

                                                     The "Undersigned"

                                                     /s/ William S. Estroff
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     William S. Estroff

Name: /s/ Mary Meegan
     ------------------------
Witness: Mary Meegan


Accepted as of the
15th day of September

EMISSIONS TESTING, INC.

By: /s/ Sidney Brown
   ---------------------------
Name: Sidney Brown
     -------------------------
Title: Chairman
      ------------------------



                                      204
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of JA Energy
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the six months ended February 29, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Hall, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

| | i. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | ii. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 14, 2016







/s/ Barry Hall

Barry Hall

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
252 La. 831

#### Emile J. CHAMPAGNE v. The NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA.

No. 49343.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 3, 1968.

In re: The Northern Assurance Company of America applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Washington. 210 So.2d 68.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
#### Clyde A. CHAPMAN, Petitioner, v. Stanley BELLOWS, individually and T. V. Town, Inc., State Fire & Casualty Company, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38215.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 12, 1969.

Monroe E. McDonald, of Sanders, Mc-Ewan, Schwarz & Mims, Orlando, for petitioner.

Wm. M. Wieland, of Wieland & Miller, Orlando, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date January 8, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law. The petition is therefore denied.

Petitioner’s application for attorney’s fees is also denied.

DREW, Acting C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
# C_2015248EN.01000301.xml

| 29.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 248/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 248/3

---

Appointment of the members of the Commission stakeholder expert group on public procurement

(2015/C 248/03)

In accordance with Article 4 of the Commission decision of 3 September 2011 (OJ C 291, 4.10.2011, p. 2) setting up a Commission stakeholder expert group on public procurement and the call for applications published on the internet site of the Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs and in the Official Journal of the European Union (2015/C 112/07), the Director-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Internal Market and Services appointed on 13 July 2015, the following members of the group of experts for a 3-year renewable mandate, from 13 July 2015:

Official Journal of the European Union

| — | BACIU Ioan |
| --- | --- |

—

BACIU Ioan

| — | BUÈS Jacques |
| --- | --- |

—

BUÈS Jacques

| — | BURNETT Michael |
| --- | --- |

—

BURNETT Michael

| — | CAMPBELL Vincent |
| --- | --- |

—

CAMPBELL Vincent

| — | DOR Virginie |
| --- | --- |

—

DOR Virginie

| — | HODAL Peter |
| --- | --- |

—

HODAL Peter

| — | HÜBNER Alexander |
| --- | --- |

—

HÜBNER Alexander

| — | JAKOB Christine |
| --- | --- |

—

JAKOB Christine

| — | KOTSONIS Totis |
| --- | --- |

—

KOTSONIS Totis

| — | MATAS Sašo |
| --- | --- |

—

MATAS Sašo

| — | MEŽALIS Ēriks |
| --- | --- |

—

MEŽALIS Ēriks

| — | NOHRSTEDT Peter |
| --- | --- |

—

NOHRSTEDT Peter

| — | PAWELEC Jakub |
| --- | --- |

—

PAWELEC Jakub

| — | RANTANEN Timo |
| --- | --- |

—

RANTANEN Timo

| — | SANCHEZ-GRAELLS Albert |
| --- | --- |

—

SANCHEZ-GRAELLS Albert

| — | SAVVIDI Evantha |
| --- | --- |

—

SAVVIDI Evantha

| — | STOLWIJK Wouter |
| --- | --- |

—

STOLWIJK Wouter

| — | TÁTRAI Tünde |
| --- | --- |

—

TÁTRAI Tünde

| — | TREMOLANTI Stefano |
| --- | --- |

—

TREMOLANTI Stefano

| — | VÁZQUEZ MATILLA Javier |
| --- | --- |

—

VÁZQUEZ MATILLA Javier

Personal data have been collected, processed and published in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3876 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3876

 To set forth the appropriate budgetary treatment of the health reform 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1994

 Mr. Allard (for himself and Mr. Penny) introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on Government Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To set forth the appropriate budgetary treatment of the health reform 
                                program.

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

SECTION 1. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF HEALTH REFORM PROGRAM.

    For purposes of budget scorekeeping by the Office of Management and 
Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, any proposed change in law 
(such as those made by the Health Security Act) respecting--
            (1) any obligation, payroll tax, assessment, premium or fee 
        required of an employer or of any other individual and which is 
        to be paid to a particular entity established pursuant to 
        Federal law shall be treated as a Federal receipt; and
            (2) any related expenditure made by any such entity 
        required pursuant to Federal law shall be treated as a Federal 
        outlay.

                                 <all>
```
## Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Andre Renor Evans

No. 06

- 18

- 00207

- CR Original Mandamus Proceeding

Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief

Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the

relief sought. Therefore, we deny the petition

.

RENDERED DECEMBER 7, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
VII

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3837

For the relief of Ulrike Sanders.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 9, 1994

Mr. VOLKMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Ulrike Sanders.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAROLE FOR ULRIKE SANDERS.

4 The Attorney General shall parole into the United

5 States Ulrike Sanders under the same conditions as the

6 Attorney General prescribed for her parole in August

7 1992.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3740 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3740

To extend and revise the authority to award endowment grants to Howard 
                  University, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1994

   Mr. Clay introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend and revise the authority to award endowment grants to Howard 
                  University, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be 
cited as the ``Howard University Endowment Amendments of 1994''.

SEC. 2. HOWARD UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT GRANTS.

    Section 203(b)(2) of the Howard University Endowment Act (20 U.S.C. 
130aa et seq.; hereinafter referred to as ``the Endowment Act'') is 
amended in the first sentence by striking out ``an amount equal to such 
grant'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``an institutional match that is 
at least equal to one dollar for each dollar of the grant not in excess 
of $1,000,000; one dollar for each two dollars of the grant above 
$1,000,000 and not in excess of $2,000,000; and one dollar for each 
three dollars of the grant above $2,000,000''.

SEC. 3. WITHDRAWALS AND EXPENDITURES.

    Section 205 of the Endowment Act is amended in subsection (c)--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``50 per centum of 
        the amount improperly expended (representing the Federal share 
        thereof)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the amount 
        improperly withdrawn or expended that represents the Federal 
        share thereof, as determined by the Secretary''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``50 per centum of 
        the amount withdrawn or expended (representing the Federal 
        share thereof)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the amount 
        withdrawn or expended that represents the Federal share 
        thereof, as determined by the Secretary,''.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 207 of the Endowment Act is amended in the first sentence 
thereof by striking out ``$2,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
``$3,441,000 for fiscal year 1994 and such sums as may be necessary for 
each of the succeeding four fiscal years''.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on enactment.

                                 <all>
```