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

----

III Oznámenia

Európska agentúra pre lieky

----

NÁBOR PRE EURÓPSKU AGENTÚRU PRE LIEKY (LONDÝN)

(2005/C 76 A/01)

Agentúra zodpovedá za koordinovanie hodnotenia a dohľadu nad liekmi používanými v humánnej a veterinárnej medicíne v Európskej únii [pozri nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 726/2004 z 31. marca 2004 — Úradný vestník Európskej únieL 136 z 30. apríla 2004]. EMEA bola zriadená v januári 1995. Má mnoho úzkych kontaktov s Európskou komisiou, 25 členskými štátmi EÚ, krajinami EZVO/Európskeho hospodárskeho priestoru a s mnohými inými skupinami v štátnom a súkromnom sektore.

Ďalšie informácie o EMEA a jej činnostiach sú ľahko dostupné na internete; naša internetová adresa je http://www.emea.eu.int.

Vybraní kandidáti budú zahrnutí do zoznamu rezerv a v závislosti od rozpočtovej situácie im môže byť ponúknutá zmluva na päť rokov s možnosťou jej predĺženia v súlade s Podmienkami zamestnávania iných zamestnancov Európskych spoločenstiev (Úradný vestník Európskych spoločenstievL 56 zo 4. marca 1968) (1).

Miestom zamestnania bude Londýn.

Kandidáti musia byť štátnymi príslušníkmi členských štátov Európskych spoločenstiev alebo Islandu, Nórska alebo Lichtenštajnska s podmienkou, že majú plné občianske práva.

Všetky podmienky, opis pracovného miesta a formulár prihlášky e možno nájsť na internetovej stránke EMEA: http://www.emea.eu.int/. Formulár prihlášky musí byť riadne podpísaný a datovaný a spolu so všetkými listinnými dôkazmi musí byť zaslaný najneskôr do 11. mája 2005 (dátum poštovej pečiatky) na nasledujúcu adresu:EMEA — Head of Personnel, 7 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London E14 4HB [tel.: (44-207) 418 84 00; fax: (44-207) 418 84 16].

V budúcnosti sa už úradný vestník nebude automaticky posielať na skupinové zoznamy adries. Ak si želáte dostávať oznámenie o uverejnení, zaregistrujte sa on-line na adrese: http://www.emea.eu.int/„Online Mailing Service“.

----

(1)  Rada prijala nový služobný poriadok, ktorý vstúpil do platnosti 1. mája 2004. Tento poriadok obsahuje novú kariérnu štruktúru. Úspešní kandidáti budú preto prijímaní na základe nového služobného pariadku v súlade s úpravami stanovenými najmä v článku 12 časti 2 prílohy XIII (pozri internetovú stránku IntraComm: http://www.europa.eu.int).

----
No.: 41328711 Israel Civil Aviation Date: November 21, 2011 International Relations Phone: 972-3-9774520 Fax: 972-3-9774594 benhura@mot.gov.il

Mr. Robert Finamore Acting Division Chief Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division U.S. Department of Transportation. Robert.Finamore@dot.gov

Subject: Request for approval flight ICL932 NOV26/27, 2011 based on reciprocity
Dear Mr. Finamore,
We wish to refer to the approva l granted by the Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI) to "Centurion Air Cargo to opera te a cargo flight under 7 th Freedom on September 28-29, 2011.
For your convenience, attached herewith pl ease find copy of the CAAI approval no. 99/11 granted to "Centurion Air Cargo" for the flight:

- CWC4851 Sep 28-29, 2011 by aircraft MD 11 Freighter on the route of Tel-Aviv – Santiago, Chile.
Based on reciprocation, the CAAI kindly requ ests the approval of The Department of Transport to approve to C.A.L. Cargo Air Lines their application to op erate the flight their planned flight on the route of Ne w York – Gothenburg, Sweden - :

- ICL932 NOV26/27, 2011 from New York to Goth enburg, Sweden and Liege, Belgium by B747-200 aircraft.
Looking forward to receiving your favorable response,

Sincerely Yours,

Avi Ben-Hur Director, Internationa l Relations Division Civil Aviation Authority of Israel

Cc: Ms. Bernice Gray – U.S. Department of Transport – Bernice.Gray@dot.gov
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 408

To provide a veterans bill of rights.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

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

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To provide a veterans bill of rights.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Bill of Rights

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATION OF RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.

7 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall take any ac8 tion necessary to ensure that any rights and benefits pro9 vided under title 38, United States Code, to veterans who

10 qualify for the rights and benefits—

11 (1) are made available to the veterans in any 1

12 State or geographic location to the same extent as
2

•HR 408 IH

1 the rights and benefits are made available to the vet2 erans in any other State or geographic location; and

3 (2) are not denied to any veteran on the basis

4 of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, age, or geographic lo5 cation.

6 SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

7 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘State’’ has the

8 same meaning given such term in section 101(20) of title

9 38, United States Code.

Æ
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2018 (the “Report”) of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, MICHAEL S.GROSS, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. 

 
 /S/    MICHAEL S. GROSS**Name:** **Michael S. Gross****Date:** **August 6, 2018****
#### Lydia Rios, Appellant, v Anna Reichardt et al., Respondents.

Appeal from an order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered on or about October 17, 1990, *397which denied plaintiffs motion seeking renewal of a prior order, entered on or about February 14, 1990, denying reargument of an October 25, 1989 order of the same court and Justice, which dismissed plaintiffs first complaint, unanimously dismissed as non-appealable.

Order of the same court and same Justice, also entered on or about October 17, 1990, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s second complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly denied plaintiffs renewal motion, seeking to address the merits of an October 25, 1989 order dismissing plaintiffs original complaint. The plaintiffs appeal from that order was dismissed by this Court for failure to prosecute and plaintiffs subsequent motion for reargument thereof was denied. Plaintiff is therefore barred from addressing the merits of the October 25, 1989 order of dismissal on the present appeal and the appeal from the October 17, 1990 order denying renewal is dismissed. *(Bray v*Cox, 38 NY2d 350.)

In any event, we find that the plaintiff failed to substantiate the existence of material facts, to explain the more than three year delay in filing a new Note of Issue in compliance with a January 13, 1986 order of Hon. Herbert Shapiro to warrant renewal *(Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558, 562).

In dismissing plaintiffs second complaint, the IAS court properly determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to recommence the underlying personal injury action pursuant to CPLR 205 where the plaintiffs original complaint had twice before been dismissed for lack of prosecution *(Benderson Dev. Co. v Litton Business Sys.,*130 AD2d 941, *lv denied*70 NY2d 607).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs remaining claims, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Noel Belgrave, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter McQuillan, J.), rendered March 22, 1985, convicting defendant after a jury trial of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted for the killing of his estranged *336wife, whom he shot several times and threw, alive, into the East River, where she drowned. Defendant made various inculpatory statements to several persons, including a fellow prisoner who in the past had provided information to law enforcement authorities.

Defendant’s motion to suppress was denied following a hearing pursuant to *Massiah v United States*(377 US 201). Defendant presents no evidence of an agreement between any government official and the prisoner to provide information about the defendant, nor instructions from the official concerning how the prisoner should have obtained the information, nor the promise or receipt of benefits to the prisoner as a result of the information he was providing. *(See, United States v Taylor,*800 F2d 1012, 1016 [10th Cir 1986], *cert denied*484 US 838; *People v Cardona,*41 NY2d 333.) Defendant made only unprompted statements to a third party, and assumed the risk that his fellow prisoner would turn over this information to authorities. The mere fact that the informant, who was clearly acting on his own initiative, had provided information in other cases does not render him an agent of the police for all purposes *(see, People v Gibbs,*157 AD2d 799).

With respect to evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts, concerning his relationship with two female witnesses, defendant’s failure to object waives the claim for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]). In light of the overwhelming evidence, it cannot be said that this evidence affected the verdict.

The prosecutor’s cross-examination of character witnesses utilized improper questions. However, again, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Finally, the Court’s substitution of an alternate juror during trial, prior to deliberations, did not deprive defendant of his constitutional and statutory right to a jury of his own choosing. The record indicates that the juror contacted the court clerk to state that he was unable to come to court, insofar as his apartment was flooded, he had been up all night responding to the flood, and that he had an autistic child for which his wife had been caring. The court denied defendant’s application for a continuance, and substituted the alternate juror. We conclude that the juror’s absence resulted from compelling hardship, rather than mere inconvenience. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7511** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ANDREW JEROME MALCOLM , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 2:08

- cr - 00232

- DCN

- 1 )

Submitted : February 27 , 2014 Decided: March 4 , 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PE R CURIAM: Andrew Jerome Malcolm seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) ( B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by de monstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Malcolm has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequat ely presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
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 Annual Report of Shearson Mid-West Futures Fund (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jerry PascucciJerry Pascucci
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
President and DirectorMarch 28, 2008Date


---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 573 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 573

  To amend title 40, United States Code, to improve veterans service 
       organizations access to Federal surplus personal property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 14, 2013

  Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Carper) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
               Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 40, United States Code, to improve veterans service 
       organizations access to Federal surplus personal property.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Formerly Owned Resources for 
Veterans to Express Thanks for Service Act of 2013'' or the ``FOR VETS 
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. VETERANS ACCESS TO FEDERAL EXCESS AND SURPLUS PERSONAL 
              PROPERTY.

    Section 549(c)(3) of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) in clause (viii), by adding ``or'' at the end; 
                and
                    (B) by striking clause (x); and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) for purposes of providing services to 
                veterans (as defined in section 101 of title 38), to an 
                organization whose--
                            ``(i) membership comprises substantially 
                        veterans; and
                            ``(ii) representatives are recognized by 
                        the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under section 
                        5902 of title 38.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8595

CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CAPTAIN BRANKER; SERGEANT DINEHART,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-95-764-5-BR)

Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a

filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th

Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the

case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee

order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We deny Appellant's motion

to disqualify the district judge. 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32**

 

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officerand Principal Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, James P. Foran, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2013 of JPX Global, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of JPX Global, Inc.

 

Date: December 20, 2013

 

By:	*/s/ James P. Foran*	

James P. Foran

Chief Executive Officer

and Principal Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julio Santana, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered May 12, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of three to six years and a concurrent one year term, respectively, unanimously affirmed, and the case remitted for proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50.

The People’s evidence at trial showed that after the occupants of a house heard noises, defendant was observed carrying a bag of clothing as he fled the second floor of the house toward the roof of the neighboring house. He was arrested by the police who discovered him hiding in the basement of the second building. Defendant testified that he entered the first house to escape people who were chasing him in connection with an automobile accident and denied taking the bag of clothing.

In its charge, the court told the jury that a person is guilty of burglary in the second degree when he "knowingly enters or remains in a building with the intent at the time to commit a crime.” On appeal defendant argues that the court’s charge deprived him of his defense.

Defendant’s claim, however, is unpreserved, and were we to reach it in the interest of justice we would find the claim to be without merit. Unlike the accused in *People v Gaines*(74 NY2d 358), defendant did not admit committing a crime within the premises as an afterthought to the unlawful entry. Moreover, there is no likelihood that defendant was found *300guilty of burglary even though he was guilty of no more than a simple trespass. The case was presented on the theory that defendant had the intent to commit a crime when he entered the building, and there is no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant had no intent to commit a crime when he entered the first house, but then decided to commit a larceny *(People v Mongen,*157 AD2d 82, 87, *appeal dismissed*76 NY2d 1015). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
#### Steve Vitale, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v City Construction Management Co., Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about March 12, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was dismissed after plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at pre-trial conferences on successive occasions. Plaintiff subsequently retained new counsel, who discovered the dismissal upon moving for an order directing prior counsel to turn over the file. That motion was ostensibly withdrawn so that plaintiff could move to restore the action to the trial calendar. The motion to restore was granted and defendant has appealed.

Absent a consent signed by prior counsel, or an order of the court, prior counsel remained plaintiff’s counsel of record (CPLR 321 [b]; *Hess v Tyszko,*46 AD2d 980). However, we accept the undisputed representation made on appeal that permission to make the motion to compel delivery of the file *327was denied, and that the court required that the instant motion to restore be made first. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust to treat the motion as improperly brought, especially since there is no showing of confusion or prejudice on the part of the defendant. Further, under the circumstances, plaintiff has sufficiently established a meritorious claim and a reasonable excuse for the default. *(Compare, Eisenstein v Rose,*135 AD2d 369.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.
# DFC FY23 - Annual FOIA Report (
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 619 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent unjust and irrational 

criminal punishments. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2013 

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent unjust 

and irrational criminal punishments. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice Safety Valve 

5 Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE BELOW A 

7 STATUTORY MINIMUM. 

8 Section 3553 of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 619 IS

1 ‘‘(g) AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE BELOW A

2 STATUTORY MINIMUM TO PREVENT AN UNJUST SEN3 TENCE.— 

4 ‘‘(1) GENERAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any 

5 provision of law other than this subsection, the court 

6 may impose a sentence below a statutory minimum 

7 if the court finds that it is necessary to do so in 

8 order to avoid violating the requirements of sub9 section (a). 

10 ‘‘(2) COURT TO GIVE PARTIES NOTICE.—Before 

11 imposing a sentence under paragraph (1), the court 

12 shall give the parties reasonable notice of the court’s 

13 intent to do so and an opportunity to respond. 

14 ‘‘(3) STATEMENT IN WRITING OF FACTORS.— 

15 The court shall state, in the written statement of 

16 reasons, the factors under subsection (a) that re17 quire imposition of a sentence below the statutory 

18 minimum. 

19 ‘‘(4) APPEAL RIGHTS NOT LIMITED.—This sub20 section does not limit any right to appeal that would 

21 otherwise exist in its absence.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS