alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

----

III Informazioni

Agenzia europea per i medicinali

----

ASSUNZIONI PER L'AGENZIA EUROPEA PER I MEDICINALI (LONDRA)

(2005/C 23 A/01)

L'Agenzia ha la responsabilità di coordinare la valutazione e la vigilanza dei medicinali per uso umano e veterinario in tutto il territorio dell'Unione europea [cfr. regolamento (CE) n. 726/2004 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europeaL  136 del 30 aprile 2004]. L'EMEA è stata istituita nel gennaio 1995 e lavora a stretto contatto con la Commissione europea, i 25 Stati membri dell'Unione europea, i paesi SEE-EFTA e molti altri gruppi del settore pubblico e privato.

Ulteriori informazioni sull'EMEA e le sue attività sono disponibili direttamente in Internet, al seguente indirizzo web: http://www.emea.eu.int

L'Agenzia europea dei medicinali indice una serie di procedure di selezione al fine di costituire elenchi di idonei per i seguenti posti:

I candidati prescelti saranno iscritti in un elenco di idonei e, a seconda delle disponibilità di bilancio, potranno ricevere un'offerta di contratto quinquennale rinnovabile alle condizioni di impiego degli altri agenti delle Comunità europee (Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europeaL  56 del 4 marzo 1968) (1)

La sede di lavoro è Londra.

I candidati devono essere cittadini di uno degli Stati membri delle Comunità europee oppure dell'Islanda, della Norvegia o del Liechtenstein, e godere dei diritti politici.

L'elenco completo delle condizioni, la descrizione dei posti e l'atto di candidatura da utilizzare vanno scaricati dal sito web dell'EMEA (http://www.emea.eu.int/). L'atto di candidatura debitamente firmato e datato deve essere inviato, unitamente ai documenti giustificativi, entro e non oltre l'11 marzo 2005 (fa fede la data del timbro postale) al seguente indirizzo:EMEA — Head of Personnel, 7 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London E14 4HB, Regno Unito, tel. (44-20) 74 18 84 00, fax (44-20) 74 18 84 16

----

(1)  Il Consiglio ha adottato un nuovo statuto del personale, entrato in vigore il 1o maggio 2004, che prevede una nuova struttura di carriera. I candidati prescelti saranno pertanto assunti in conformità delle disposizioni contenute nel nuovo statuto, in particolare l'articolo 12 della sezione 2 dell'allegato XIII (cfr. sito web IntraComm all'indirizzo http://www.europa.eu.int).

----
----

COMMISSION COMMUNICATION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 73/23/EEC

(2005/C 102/01)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonized standards under the directive)

Example: For EN 60034-2: 1996, the following applies:

This list replaces all the previous lists published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

----

(1)  CEN: rue de Stassart/De Stassartstraat 36, B - 1050 Brussels, tel: (32-2) 550 08 11, fax: (32-2) 550 08 19 (http://www.cenorm.be)

CENELEC: rue de Stassart/De Stassartstraat 35, B - 1050 Brussels, tel: (32-2) 519 68 71, fax: (32-2) 519 69 19 (http://www.cenelec.org)

ETSI: 650, route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis, tel: (33) 492 94 42 12, fax: (33) 493 65 47 16 (http://www.etsi.org)

----
# C_2015367EN.01000802.xml

| 5.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/8

---

EUROPEAN SECURITIES AND MARKETS AUTHORITY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2014

(2015/C 367/29)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.esma.europa.eu/page/Corporate-information

---
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Denali Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov","author_name":"Brian Aldridge","author_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/author\/baldridge\/","title":"Transportation","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"SkuHxqwgsc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/transportation\/\">Transportation<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/transportation\/embed\/#?secret=SkuHxqwgsc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Transportation” — Denali Commission\" data-secret=\"SkuHxqwgsc\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3583 — FLEXTRONICS/NORTEL)

(2004/C 322/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 October 2004, 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:

----
DFC

                                                                            Main navigation

      
      Who We Are
                            About Us
                      Overview
                      Careers
                            Hiring Paths
                      Career Paths
                      Events
                      DEIA
                      Contact
                      Our People
                            Executive Staff
                      Board of Directors
                      Development Advisory Council
                      What We Do
                            Our Work
                            Regions
                      Sectors
                      Initiatives
                      Active Projects
                      Investment Stories
                      What We Offer
                            Our Products
                            Debt Financing
                      Equity Investments
                      Investment Funds
                      Feasibility Studies
                      Political Risk Insurance
                      Technical Assistance
                      Work With Us
                            Where We Work
                      Investment Policies
                      Eligibility Checklist
                      Apply
                      Our Impact
                            Approach to Impact
                      Transaction Data
                      Reports
                      Transparency
                            Overview
                      Office of Accountability
                      Office of Inspector General
                      Media
                            Newsroom
                      In the News
                      Speeches & Testimony

                                Search...
                Keywords
Apply DFC Top Menu - Media items
  

        

Newsroom
                    In the News
                    Speeches & Testimony
 DFC CEO Scott Nathan's Virtual Remarks at the 2023 Indo-Pacific Business Forum
 Remote video URL
 Follow UsStay connected with DFC news and updates!
Sign Up
      
        U.S. International Development Finance Corporation1100 New York Ave NW, Washington, DC 20527Info@dfc.gov | +1 (202) 336-8400
                            
                                                Footer - Quick Links 1
  

        
      White House
                      usa.gov
                      Office of Inspector General
                      Archived Reports
                      Privacy
                      Accessibility
                      Vulnerability Disclosure Form
                      Information Quality Guidelines
                      FOIA
                      EEO Office ×
 Keywords
Apply
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1047

VANESSA POWELL-MCCRAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SAM’S CLUB,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cv-00196-WO-PTS)

Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vanessa Powell-McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Kerr Adams, 

Angela Byrd Cummings, LITTLER MENDELSON, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Vanessa Powell-McCray appeals (1) the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss this employment 

discrimination action; and (2) the court’s order denying her 

request to file a surreply and reaffirming the court’s order of 

dismissal. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues 

raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 

Because Powell-McCray’s informal brief does not challenge the 

district court’s conclusion that the action was time-barred 

based upon her failure to timely file a charge with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, Powell-McCray has forfeited

appellate review of the order dismissing the action.

To the extent Powell-McCray challenges the court’s 

denial of her request for a surreply, we have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Powell-McCray v. 

Sam’s Club, No. 1:10-cv-00196-WO-PTS (M.D.N.C. Dec. 14, 2010). 

We deny Powell-McCray’s motions to appoint counsel and for 

injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Israel Nadal, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven Lloyd Barrett, J.), rendered October 25, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from five to fifteen years and four to twelve years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s conviction arises out of the gunpoint, mid-afternoon robbery of a livery cab driver on April 4, 1987, perpetrated by two men who took the victim’s money, keys and cab. Defendant was not arrested for at least another six weeks. None of the robbery proceeds were recovered.

On summation, the prosecutor properly commented on the trial evidence, which consisted essentially of the victim’s account of the robbery and his identification, both in-court and at a lineup procedure conducted approximately six weeks after the robbery, of defendant as one of the two robbers based upon the victim’s close-range observations during a period of over one and one-half hours. Since the identification issue *233which the jury had to resolve included the larger question of whether the complainant’s identification was accurate, it was improper, however, for the prosecutor to argue that if the jury believed the complainant it must convict. Although defense counsel’s summation included repeated attacks on the credibility of the complainant, he also argued that the witness was "not being accurate.” We nevertheless find that reversal is not warranted. Any error in this regard was neutralized by the court’s instruction that the jury was free to "disregard” any arguments which were "not accurate reflections of the evidence or illogical or unfair.” The court’s identification charge was thorough and evenly balanced and emphasized that the jury had to "consider the totality of the circumstances affecting the accuracy of [the] identification here.” Finally, any error is harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. *(See, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242.)

We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in the imposition of sentence, which, in the circumstances, is not excessive. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Smith, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 2, 2020

Order 

Clerk

October 2, 2020

162057(3)

ZACK B. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

SC: 162057

v AGC: 20-0965

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff to waive the filing fees in this 

matter is GRANTED.
<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

In connection with the Annual Report of Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 3 for the period ending December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Evan C. McKeown, Chief Financial 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.

/s/ Evan C. McKeown
-------------------
Evan C. McKeown
Chief Financial Officer
December 11, 2003

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.
**Exhibit
31.1**
  I,
Jeffrey I. Badgley, certify that:
  1.
    I
      have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K of Miller Industries,
      Inc.;
  2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this annual 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
      annual report;
  3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects
      the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
      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)) 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)
    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;
and
  c)
    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 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 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 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.
  Date:
March 14, 2005
   /s/
      Jeffrey I. Badgley
      Jeffrey I. Badgley
      President
      and Co-Chief Executive Officer
#### Rosemary Van Pelt, Appellant, v Richard Van Pelt, Defendant, and Adeline Van Pelt, Nonparty-Respondent.

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated September 29, 1989, which granted the nonparty-respondent’s motion to direct that the judgment of divorce be entered nunc pro tunc as of January 20, 1988.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this matrimonial action, the Supreme Court, on January 20, 1988, upon the uncontested withdrawal of the defendant husband’s answer and after an inquest on the plaintiff first wife’s complaint, stated that a "judgment of divorce [is] granted” to the first wife and directed the parties to submit separate findings of fact, conclusions of law, judgment and minutes on notice. Before the judgment of divorce was signed on March 31, 1988, the husband married the second wife on February 10, Í988.

The husband died on December 27, 1988. By letter dated May 1, 1989, the Social Security Administration advised the second wife that she was not entitled to Social Security benefits as the husband’s widow because her marriage to the husband was void, in that her "husband’s prior marriage had not ended when [she] married him”.

The second wife moved in the divorce action to have the judgment dated March 31, 1988, amended nunc pro tunc so as to provide that it became effective as of January 20, 1988. Contrary to the first wife’s contention, the second wife, although not a party to the divorce action, had standing to make the motion *(see, Johnson v Johnson,*198 Misc 691, 695, *affd*277 App Div 1143).

It is clear that the trial court rendered its determination on January 20, 1988, and the entry of the final judgment of divorce on March 31, 1988, constituted nothing more than a mere formality or ministerial act. Therefore, the second wife’s application being meritorious, the court properly amended the judgment of divorce nunc pro tunc *(see, Lynch v Lynch,*13 NY2d 615; *Cornell v Cornell,*7 NY2d 164; *Jayson v Jayson,*54 AD2d 687; *Johnson v Johnson,*277 App Div 1143; *see generally,*Annotation, *Divorce—Decree Nunc Pro Tunc,*19 ALR3d 648). We note that the amendment of the judgment nunc pro tunc does not interfere with the vested rights of the first wife’s son since regardless of the second wife’s status as the *660husband’s widow, the son is still entitled to his fair share of Social Security benefits as the surviving child of the husband. Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS**

**ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Embotelladora Andina S.A (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Miguel Ángel Peirano, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.

 

 
| /s/MIGUEL   ÁNGEL PEIRANO |   |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Miguel   Ángel Peirano    |   |   |
| Chief   Executive Officer      |   |   |
| Embotelladora   Andina S.A.    |   |   |
| Dated:   April 30, 2013        |   |   |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
p.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

13) I V-E-08 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/2008 11:57:59 AM Sheet 13 of 117 
P.2 

ft-*} 0-3-7 

NSR REFORM DOCKETING FORM 

NAME OF EXTERNAL GROUP: Bill Tyndall 

MEETING X SPEECH PHONE CALL (check one) 

DATE: June 4,1997 

l-3t -*ft 

TIME: 11:30 a.m. 

LOCATION OF MEETING/SPEECH/PHONE CALL: 

Office of Bill Tyndall 

PURPOSE OF MEETING/SPEECH/PHONE CALL: 

To discuss workgroup history associated with the drafting of the NSR reform proposal. 

ATTENDEES: Anna Marie Wood, Tom Eagles and Bill Tyndall 

COMMENTS: No new information discussed or provided.