alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015218EN.01000201.xml

| 3.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/2

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/183/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1066, concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

(2015/C 218/02)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entity that appear in Annex II to Council Decision 2013/183/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1066 (2), concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entity that appear in the abovementioned Annex should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The grounds for the listing of the persons and entity concerned appear in the relevant entries in that Annex.

The attention of the persons and entity concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Council Regulation (CE) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (3), in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 8 of the Regulation).

3

The persons and entity concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons and entity concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 52.

1

(2)  OJ L 174, 3.7.2015, p. 25.

2

(3)  OJ L 88, 29.3.2007, p. 1.

3

---
Order filed March 25, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00720-CV

____________

LUIS GARCIA DE LOS SALMONES AND MARIA GARCIA DE LOS 

SALMONES, Appellant

V.

ANCHOR DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-36029

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed November 3, 2020. Our review has determined 

that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P.

34.5(c). The record does not contain the Emergency Motion to Remove Injunction 

filed in the 234th District Court on August 5, 2020.
The Harris County district Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before April 4, 2022, containing Emergency Motion to Remove 

Injunction filed in the 234th District Court on August 5, 2020.

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, Hassan.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-39646, 33-39648, 33-88470, 33-88472, 333-18869, 333-70561 of Parlex
Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated August 22, 2000, appearing in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Parlex Corporation for the year ended June 30,
2000.

    /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
    Deloitte & Touche LLP
    Boston, Massachusetts
    September 27, 2000
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

EWINWIN, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

GROUPON, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

2012-1165 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida in Case No. 10-CV-2678, Judge 

Susan C. Bucklew. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

COLBY B. SPRINGER, Lewis and Roca LLP, of Mountain 

View, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him 

on the brief was BRENT W. RASMUSSEN, of Phoenix, 

Arizona. 

J. DAVID HADDEN, Fenwick & West LLP, of Mountain 

View, California, argued for defendant-appellee. With him 

on the brief were RYAN J. MARTON and ELIZABETH J.

WHITE. 
______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, MAYER, and MOORE, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 9, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                       Dean Foods Company and Subsidiaries

                Computation of Basic and Diluted Income Per Share

                      (In thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                           1999          1998           1997
                                                     ----------    ----------     ----------
<S>                                                  <C>           <C>            <C>
Income from Continuing Operations                    $   70,331    $   87,980     $   73,988
Income (Loss) from Discontinued Operations               (2,929)       18,322         12,716
Gain on Sale of Discontinued Operations                  83,820            --             --
                                                     ----------    ----------     ----------
Net Income                                           $  151,222    $  106,302     $   86,704
                                                     ==========    ==========     ==========

BASIC INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE:
Income from Continuing Operations                    $     1.77    $     2.17     $     1.84
Income (Loss) from Discontinued Operations                 (.07)          .46            .32
Gain on Sale of Discontinued Operations                    2.10            --             --
                                                     ----------    ----------     ----------
Net Income                                           $     3.80    $     2.63     $     2.16
                                                     ==========    ==========     ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding               39,842        40,469         40,181
                                                     ==========    ==========     ==========


DILUTED INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE:
Income from Continuing Operations                    $     1.74    $     2.13     $     1.83
Income (Loss) from Discontinued Operations                 (.07)          .44            .32
Gain on Sale of Discontinued Operations                    2.07            --             --
                                                     ----------    ----------     ----------
Net Income                                           $     3.74    $     2.57     $     2.15
                                                     ==========    ==========     ==========

Adjusted weighted average common shares*                 40,482        41,395         40,377
                                                     ==========    ==========     ==========
</TABLE>


*   Includes weighted average number of potential common shares outstanding.
    Potential common shares consist solely of the outstanding options under the
    Company's stock options plan.
CAS IES
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 3148 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 254 - AD
Exhibit 32.1



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 UBI Blockchain
Internet, LTD (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended November 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tony Liu, 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: January 23, 2017





/s/ Tony Liu____________

Tony Liu,

(Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit
10.79**
 
 **Management
Incentive Plan Outline**
 **For
Digital Angel Corporation**
 
 
 **Annual
Incentive Cash Bonus Plan Outline**
 
 
 The
Annual Incentive Cash Bonus Plan for 2005 is based upon the following metrics in
the percentages indicated:
 
 Revenue
    50%EBITDA
    0%Operating
      Income
    20%Cash
    20%Management/Board
      Disc
    10%
 
 Bonuses,
if earned, based upon the established targets, would be paid at levels between a
Minimum Performance level and a Maximum Performance level. Set forth below is
the bonus award matrix, with percentages reflecting a percentage of the
executives’ salary:
 
 CEO
    
    Senior
      Execs
    
    ExecsMinimum
    50%
    
    30%
    
    15%Target
    100%
    
    60%
    
    30%Maximum
    200%
    
    120%
    
    60%
July 29, 2015

 Exemption No. 11535A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0396

Mr. Robert Patton

Littlebirds VIEW

5549 Old Plank Road

Iron Station, NC 28080

Dear Mr. Patton:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains 

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions 

and limitations.

By letter dated May 20, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Littlebirds VIEW (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to your 

current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 

61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and 

(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the 

petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection. You requested an amendment 

to add closed-set motion picture and television filming.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. The 

unmanned aircraft authorized in the original grant are comparable in type, size, weight, speed 

and operating capabilities to those in this petition.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11535 

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained 

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is 
2

granted an amendment to add closed-set motion picture and television filming to its UAS 

operations.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 11535 remain in effect except 

as follows. Condition No. 2 has been updated to allow closed-set motion picture and 

television filming. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are 

permitted.

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
<PAGE>

                                                                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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Applied
Digital Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott R. Silverman, Chief 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 result of operations of the
Company.




By: /s/ Scott R. Silverman
--------------------------
Scott R. Silverman
Chief Executive Officer
March 16, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Applied
Digital Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
LII-EX10.11_2013.12.31-10K






Exhibit 10.11




Sections 5(a) and (b) of existing Long-Term Incentive Award Agreements (U.S. Employees-Vice President and Above) are amended to read as follows:


“(a)    If, prior to the end of the Performance Period, Retention Period or SAR Period, Participant is terminated by LII for Cause (as defined in any applicable employment agreement between LII and Participant or as determined by the Committee in its sole discretion in the absence of any such employment agreement), then, immediately after Participant’s termination, the PSU Award, RSU Award or SAR Award will be cancelled.


(b)    If, prior to the end of the Performance Period, Retention Period or SAR Period, Participant terminates employment with LII voluntarily, or Participant’s employment with LII is terminated by LII not for Cause, then, (i) immediately after Participant’s termination, the PSU Award or RSU Award will be cancelled, and (ii) immediately after Participant’s termination, the Earned SARs will continue to be exercisable subject to the SAR Period for 90 days following Participant’s termination, and the remainder of the SAR Award will be cancelled.”




Sections 5(a) and (b) of existing Long-Term Incentive Award Agreements (U.S. Employees--Directors) are amended to read as follows:




“(a)    If, prior to the end of the Retention Period or SAR Period, Participant is terminated by LII for Cause (as defined in any applicable employment agreement between LII and Participant or as determined by the Committee in its sole discretion in the absence of any such employment agreement), then, immediately after Participant’s termination, the RSU Award or SAR Award will be cancelled.


(b)    If, prior to the end of the Retention Period or SAR Period, Participant terminated employment with LII voluntarily, or Participant’s employment with LII is terminated by LII not for Cause, then, (i) immediately after Participant’s termination, the RSU Award will be cancelled, and (ii) immediately after Participant’s termination, the Earned SARs will continue to be exercisable subject to the SAR Period for 90 days following Participant’s termination, and the remainder of the SAR Award will be cancelled.”
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

EDWARD FREEMAN,

Petitioner

v.

MAJOR HYUNDAI OF STROUDSBURG,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 165 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of January, 2017, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_______________________________________

)

TROY JENNINGS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1475 (PLF)

)

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

DISMISSAL ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss [Dkt. #12] is GRANTED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. #17]

is DENIED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED.

This is a final appealable Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).

SO ORDERED.

/s/______________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: September 25, 2009
I

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.

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

3 That this Act may be cited as the ‘‘Howard University

4 Endowment Amendments of 1994’’.

5 SEC. 2. HOWARD UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT GRANTS.

6 Section 203(b)(2) of the Howard University Endow7 ment Act (20 U.S.C. 130aa et seq.; hereinafter referred

8 to as ‘‘the Endowment Act’’) is amended in the first sen9 tence by striking out ‘‘an amount equal to such grant’’

10 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘an institutional match that
2

HR 3740 IH

1 is at least equal to one dollar for each dollar of the grant

2 not in excess of $1,000,000; one dollar for each two dollars

3 of the grant above $1,000,000 and not in excess of

4 $2,000,000; and one dollar for each three dollars of the

5 grant above $2,000,000’’.

6 SEC. 3. WITHDRAWALS AND EXPENDITURES.

7 Section 205 of the Endowment Act is amended in

8 subsection (c)—

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking out ‘‘50 per

10 centum of the amount improperly expended (rep11 resenting the Federal share thereof)’’ and inserting

12 in lieu thereof ‘‘the amount improperly withdrawn or

13 expended that represents the Federal share thereof,

14 as determined by the Secretary’’; and

15 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking out ‘‘50 per

16 centum of the amount withdrawn or expended (rep17 resenting the Federal share thereof)’’ and inserting

18 in lieu thereof ‘‘the amount withdrawn or expended

19 that represents the Federal share thereof, as deter20 mined by the Secretary,’’.

21 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

22 Section 207 of the Endowment Act is amended in the

23 first sentence thereof by striking out ‘‘$2,000,000’’ and

24 inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘$3,441,000 for fiscal year 1994
3

HR 3740 IH

1 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the suc2 ceeding four fiscal years’’.

3 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

4 This Act shall take effect on enactment.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Colin Salmon, Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 262]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered November 6, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a *438weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At trial, the sole eyewitness to the murder of Esther Epps testified that he saw the defendant use the same gun to threaten another woman a few days earlier. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial. The trial court sustained the objection of the defendant’s attorney to the testimony and promptly issued a curative instruction alleviating any prejudice that may have resulted from the brief reference to a prior uncharged crime *(see, People v Reed,*176 AD2d 972; *People v Aguirre,*248 AD2d 717).

The defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.