alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2006203EN.01001001.xml

| 26.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 203/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 203/10

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 24 July 2006

amending Article 35 of Appendix 6 to the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees

(2006/519/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees, as laid down in Council Act of 3 December 1998 (1), and in particular Appendix 6 on the pension scheme,

Whereas the reassessment referred to in Article 35(2) of said Appendix 6 has proven not to be necessary and the procedure for calculating actuarial values provided for in Article 35(1) of said Appendix 6 should be continued,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Article 35(2) and (3) of Appendix 6 to the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees shall be repealed with effect from 1 January 2004.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption and shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 24 July 2006.

For the Council

The President

K. RAJAMÄKI

---

(1)  
  OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 23. Act as last amended by Act of the Management Board of Europol of 29 September 2005 (OJ C 68, 21.3.2006, p. 1).

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

Certifications 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 of the
iShares® S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (the Trust) and
iShares® S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Investing Pool LLC (the Investing Pool) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Latham, Chief Executive Officer of BlackRock Asset Management International Inc., the Sponsor of
the Trust and Manager of the Investing Pool, 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, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust
and Investing Pool.

Date: May 7, 2010



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Michael A. Latham        
|Michael A. Latham *          
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal executive officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and the Co-Registrant is a limited liability company and Mr. Latham is signing in his capacity as an officer of BlackRock Asset
Management International Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant and Manager of the Co-Registrant.
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Annelore ROOKARD, Appellant, v. Jesse ROOKARD, Appellee.

No. 61279.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 6, 1987.

H. Allen Johnson, Lawton, for appellant.

HODGES, Justice.

The issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court erred by failing to consider the appellee’s military pension fund as jointly acquired property of the marriage. This case is considered on appellant’s brief only.

Jesse Rookard (appellee) has served twenty years in the military. Of those twenty years sixteen and one-half were spent married to Annelore Rookard (appellant). The trial court granted the parties a divorce and awarded appellant $18,600 in support alimony and divided the joint property of the parties. The trial transcript reveals the trial judge specifically declined to consider the vested military pension plan of the appellee for any other purpose other than support alimony.

Pursuant to 12 O.S. 1981, § 1278 the trial court is given wide discretion in the awarding of support alimony and jointly acquired property. A judgment in order to be modified must be clearly against the weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion. *Carpenter v. Carpenter,*657 P.2d 646, 651 (Okla.1983); *Peters v. Peters,*539 P.2d 26, 27 (Okla.1975).

This Court recognized in *Carpenter*that a pension is “a valuable right which has been purchased through the joint efforts of the spouses to the extent it has been acquired or enhanced during the marriage, and as such becomes jointly acquired property.” *Carpenter,*657 at 651. This Court recently held in *Stokes v. Stokes,*738 P.2d 1346 (Okla.1987), a military pension is not different from a private pension plan and accordingly may be divisible as jointly acquired property. *Stokes*is controlling and governs the disposition of the instant case.

Because the trial court specifically declined to consider appellee’s military pension fund as jointly acquired property, we reverse and remand the case to the trial court for review of the property and alimony award to effect a just and equitable property division, including consideration of the value of the military pension as jointly acquired property, to the extent it

*1084was jointly acquired, pursuant to this opinion.

All the Justices concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 11, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20456

Summary Calendar

NINO CASTELLANIA GIBSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-1145

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

Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nino Castellania Gibson, Texas prisoner # 561250, appeals

the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the

denial of credit for time served on release to mandatory

supervision after his supervision was revoked. A certificate of

appealability was granted on the issues “whether he was eligible

for credit for his street time under TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 508.283(c) and whether he had a protected liberty interest in

credit for his street time.” Gibson v. Dretke, No. 04-20456 (5th
No. 04-20456

-2-

Cir. Jan. 4, 2005) (unpublished). We review the district court’s

findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de

novo. Summers v. Dretke, 431 F.3d 861, 868 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Section 508.283(c) was amended to provide “that certain

parole violators will receive street-time credit if the

‘remaining portion’ of their sentence is less than the amount of

time they have spent out on parole.” See Ex parte Spann, 132

S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The amendments, however,

apply only to revocations occurring on or after September 1,

2001. Id.; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 508.283 (Vernon 2004). 

The record discloses that Gibson’s mandatory supervision was

revoked on March 26, 2001. Consequently, he is not entitled to

credit for street time because his mandatory supervision was

revoked prior to September 1, 2001. See Spann, 132 S.W.3d at

392. We therefore need not reach the issue whether § 508.283(c)

affords Texas prisoners a liberty interest in street-time credit. 

In light of the foregoing, the state court’s decision was

neither contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,

clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. 

See § 2254(d); Summers, 431 F.3d at 868. 

AFFIRMED.
July 29, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

APRIL BROWN, DAVID RAFFERTY, STEVE GANN, KATHY HILTON, 

IRENE GARCIA AND STEVE STUCKEY, Appellants

NO. 14-14-00491-CV V.

WILLIAM HENSLEE, TOM JENKINS, TROY JONES, DAVID MARKS, 

BARNARD PEARL, THOMAS WALSH, STAN WILLIAMS, JACK EREIRA 

AND ANDREW ROSENBERG’S, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on May 22, 2014. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



Consent of Independent Accountants


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-19541 and 333-39361) and Form S-3 (File No.
333-31863) of Personnel Group of America, Inc. of our report dated February 5,
2001, except for the second paragraph of Note 5, for which the date is March 21,
2001, relating to the financial statements, which appears as Exhibit 13.1 in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                                      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Charlotte, North Carolina
  March 30, 2001
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 5D 2 3

- 301 LT Case No. 45

- 2020

- CF

- 000619



### _____________________________

M ARQUIS D EON D AY ,
Appellant



### ,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA ,
Appellee



### .

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County. James H. Daniel , Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Joseph Chloupek, Assistant Public Defender

, Daytona Beach

, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee.

August 22, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.

W ALL IS , J AY , and B OATWRIGHT , JJ ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
Exhibit31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Richard A. Wisot, certifythat:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K of Proliance International, Inc.;

2.    Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period coveredby this report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)    Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)    Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

|                      |  |                                        |  |  |  |  |
|----------------------|--|----------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| Date: March 31, 2006 |  | /s/ RichardA. Wisot                    |
|                 |  | Richard A. WisotChief FinancialOfficer |
|                      |

----
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7800

MA UR O PALACIO , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. B. SULLIVAN , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. ( 5:19

- hc

- 02064

- FL )

Submitted : July 30, 2020 Decided : August 4, 2020

Before WILKINSON , MOTZ , and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.

M auro Palacio , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mauro Palacio seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition. Upon review, we conclude that the appeal is moot.

“ The mootness doctrine is a limitation on federal judicial power grounded in the
‘case

- or - controversy’ requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution.” United States v. Springer , 715 F.3d 535, 5 4 0 (4th Cir. 2013); see U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “Mootness is a jurisdictional question and thus may be raised sua sponte by a federal court at any stage of proceedings.” Springer , 715 F.3d at 540. “[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘ live ’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the out

- come.” Incumaa v. Ozmint , 507 F.3d 281, 285

- 86 (4th Cir . 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. We lack jurisdiction over any portion of an appeal that becomes moot. Id

. In his petition, Palacio

— a federal prisoner at the time

— sought good conduct credits under the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Palacio , however, is no longer incarcerated. Overserved prison time does not shorten a defendant’s term of supervision. United States v. Johnson , 529 U.S. 53, 59 (2000) (“The objectives of supervised release would be unfulfilled if e xcess prison time were to offset and reduce terms of supervised release.

. . . Supervised release fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct from those served by incarceration.”) ; United States v. Jackson , 952 F.3d 492, 498 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Although custodial and supervised release terms are components of one unitary sentence, they serve different purposes. The conditions of a defendant’s supervised release are intended to provide the defendant with assistance in transitioning into3 commun ity life.” (internal citation omitted) )

. Therefore , even if Palacio were entitled to good conduct credits, his release from incarceration renders this claim moot

. * Accordingly, we deny Palacio’s motion to appoint counsel and dismiss this appeal
as moot. 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.

DISMISSED

* Because Palacio’s petition is moot, the deficiencies in the petition cannot be cured by amendment. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC , 959 F.3d 605, 610

- 11 (4th Cir. 2020). Thus, the district court’s dismissal without prejudice is a final, appealable order.
#### Massachusetts Bonding *&*Ins. Co., Appellant, *v.*Westinghouse Electric *&*Mfg. Co., Appellee.

*140(No. 30945

Decided April 23, 1947.)

*Mr. S. L. Heckman,*for appellant.

*Messrs. McKeehan, Merrick, Arter & Stewart*and *Mr. Clinton M. Horn,*for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right he, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-301

LT Case No. 45-2020-CF-000619

_____________________________

MARQUIS DEON DAY,

Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County.

James H. Daniel, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Joseph Chloupek, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

August 22, 2023

PER CURIAM.

 AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, JAY, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion 

under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

_____________________________
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0000703 24-JUN-2014 08:03 AM

SCWC-13-0000703 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I GENE WONG, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
vs. HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., Respondent/Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0000703; CIV. NO. 11-1-2459) ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the abovereferenced matter not having been filed by the Intermediate Court of Appeals at the time the application for certiorari was filed,
see Hawai ' i Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) (Supp. 2013); see also Hawai ' i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 36(b)(1) (2012), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for writ of certiorari, filed June 19, 2014, is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing the application pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1(a) (2014) (“The application shall be filed within thirty days after the filing of the intermediate court of appeals’judgment on appeal or dismissal order, unless the time for filing the application is extended in accordance with this rule.”). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, June 24, 2014. R. Steven Geshell for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00670-CR

Simon Rene GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR10101

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 9, 2015.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
### The HONORABLE GEORGE HOWARD, JR., United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-3478

___________ Pearlie Creal Pope, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Jesse Brown, Secretary of * Eastern District of Arkansas. Veteran's Affairs, et al., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 19, 1996 Filed: June 26, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Pe arlie Creal Pope appeals from the district court's orde r 1 dismis sing her employment discrimination suit, based on her failure t o timely file the complaint. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we c onclude that dismissal of the complaint was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# L_2012359DE.01007701.xml

| 29.12.2012 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 359/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2012

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 359/77

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2006/7/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 15. Februar 2006 über die Qualität der Badegewässer und deren Bewirtschaftung und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinie 76/160/EWG

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 64 vom 4. März 2006
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 64 vom 4. März 2006

Auf Seite 43, Artikel 12 Absatz 3:

anstatt:

„(3)   Die in den Absätzen 1 und 2 aufgeführten Informationen werden so bald sie zur Verfügung stehen mit Wirkung vom Beginn der fünften Badesaison nach dem 24. März 2008 verbreitet.“

muss es heißen:

„(3)   Die in den Absätzen 1 und 2 aufgeführten Informationen werden, sobald sie zur Verfügung stehen, ab Beginn der fünften Badesaison nach dem 24. März 2008 verbreitet.“

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 20, 2021

No. 04

- 19

- 00206

- CR

Joel ALEJANDREZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 381st Judicial District Court

, Starr County, Texas

Tri al Court No. 15

- CR

- 101

Honorable Jose Luis Garza , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

S itting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief J ustice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I

. Val enzuela, Justice

The en banc court has considered Appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration; the

motion is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.7.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WI TNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of July, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Cour t