alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 219I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 219I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 653 June 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 219I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 653 June 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2022/C 219 I/01 | Notice for the attention of the persons, entities and bodies subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/883, and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine | 1 |
| 2022/C 219 I/02 | Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine apply | 3 |
| 2022/C 219 I/03 | Notice for the attention of Rossiya RTR / RTR Planeta, Rossiya 24 / Russia 24 and TV Centre International regarding their inclusion in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine | 5 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2022/C 219 I/01

Notice for the attention of the persons, entities and bodies subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/883, and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

1

2022/C 219 I/02

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine apply

3

2022/C 219 I/03

Notice for the attention of Rossiya RTR / RTR Planeta, Rossiya 24 / Russia 24 and TV Centre International regarding their inclusion in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine

5

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000845750
<NAME>                        WNC CALIFORNIA HOUSING TAX CREDITS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                              61,123
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    61,123
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,569,474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                         720,971
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,569,474
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       465
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       37,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    82,637
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (120,156)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (120,156)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (120,156)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (15.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
#### William Cook, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.

(Supreme Court of Florida, *En Banc.,*

July 25, 1905.)

Writ of Error *to*Circuit Court, Nassau County; Rhydon M. Call, Judge.

*H. J. Baker, Sr.,*and *B. P. Garteton,*for plaintiff in Error.

*W. E. Ellis,*Attorney-General, for State.

This a criminal action was brought Iby the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. There was judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant takes writ of error.

It appearing to the court that the plaintiff in error since the issuing of the writ of error in this cause has escaped from the custody of the law and is now a fugitive from justice, on the motion of the Attorney-General, it is ordered that the writ of error be dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2425 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2425

      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's footwear.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

 Mr. Brownback introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's footwear.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN'S FOOTWEAR.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Other footwear for  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        women, with outer                                                  31/2011.......
                        soles and uppers
                        of rubber or
                        plastics, valued
                        at more than $3
                        but not more than
                        $6.50 per pair,
                        other than house
                        slippers
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        6402.99.70)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5625]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than March 23, 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. FBF Partners, LP, San Francisco, California; to acquire voting 
shares of Congressional Bancshares, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland, and 
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Congressional Bank, 
Potomac, Maryland.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, 
Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. John R. Gandrud, as Trustee of The Erick A. Gandrud Irrevocable 
Trust, and Erick A. Gandrud, as Trustee of The John R. Gandrud 
Irrevocable Trust, both of Glenwood, Minnesota; to become members of 
The Gandrud Family Group, and to retain voting shares of Eagle 
Investment Company, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares 
of Eagle Bank, both in Glenwood, Minnesota.
    2. Daniel Eugene Bergee and Dale VanHavermaet, both of Hawley, 
Minnesota, as proposed co-trustees, to acquire control of State Bank of 
Hawley Employee Stock Ownership Plan & Trust (ESOP), and thereby 
indirectly acquire control of Bankshares of Hawley, Inc., and State 
Bank of Hawley, all in Hawley, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 5, 2012.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-5625 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 24
- 10337 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Daniel Hernandez Martinez,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:23
- CR
- 70 - 3

**______________________________** Before **Wiener, Ho,** and **Ramirez,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Defendant
- Appellant Daniel Hernandez Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez Martinez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 3, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 24-10337 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024No. 24
- 10337

2 record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. C ounsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is therefore **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.**  42.2 . Case: 24-10337 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2024
Exhibit 34.1Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmTo American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (the “Company”), Servicer:We haveexamined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying “Management’s Assertion onCompliance with Regulation AB Criteria”, that American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB as of December 31, 2006 andfor the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31,2006 (the “Reporting Period”), for all asset-backedsecurities transactions  involving credit and charge card receivables conducted by the AmericanExpress Credit Account Master Trust and the American Express Issuance Trust where the relatedasset-backed securities were outstanding as of December 31, 2006and during the Reporting Period (the “Platform”), excluding criteria (d)(1)(iii), (d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(iii),(d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(4)(i), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii)and (d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicableto the servicing activities performed byit with respect to the Platform. Appendix A to management’s assertion identifies theindividual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as constituting thePlatform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination.Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidenceabout the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such otherprocedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing ofselected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed thoseselected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicableservicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicingactivities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures werenot designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to orsubsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported bythe Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria.In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicableservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006 for the Platform is fairlystated, in all material respects./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Placeholder for five “Laboratory Report No.” attachments to the SNAP Information Notice for PFBI,

pertaining to Part III – Section A Toxicity and Hazard Information. Claimed as confidential business information (CBI).
EXHIBIT 23.1  CONSENT OF DELOITTE AND TOUCHE LLP







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-15689, No. 333-42534, No. 333-65924, and No. 333-129698 for the Century Aluminum Company 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, Registration Statement No. 333-15671 for the Century Aluminum Company Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan (all on Forms S-8) and Registration Statement No. 333-143315 (on Form S-3), as amended, of our reports dated March 16, 2011, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Century Aluminum Company and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of Century Aluminum Company and subsidiaries’ internal control over financial reporting, all appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Century Aluminum Company for the year ended December 31, 2010.
  /s/  Deloitte and Touche LLP
   Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 March 16, 2011
/ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL 

AND SCOT SPENCER 

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. 

AND RICHARD BERNARD 

Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive 

Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition, and 

Violations of Public Charter Rules 

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

Enforcement Proceeding 

STATUS REPORT 

Y r- (~ 

DOT -OST -1995-272 

formerly 

Docket 49233 

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order 

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and 

settlement negotiations. 

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents 

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486. 
2 

There have been no further settlement discussions. 

Date: May 25,2012. 

Respectfully submitted, 

~eit=- Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

~~~Cu~ Senior Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room 96-429 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-9342 

FAX: 202-366-7152 
3 

Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 

I hereby certify that on this 25th day of May, 2012, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: 

Original 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

By First Class Mail 

The Honorable Ronnie A Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2142 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

By First Class Mail 

Scot Spencer 

SBD Aircraft Services 

255 S Leland Norton Way 

Sam Bernardino, CA 92408
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







I, Jesus Oliveras, Chief Financial Officer, of International Power Group, Ltd. (the Company ), do hereby certify, 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:



1.

This Quarterly Report on 10Q/A of the Company for the period ended June 30,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.





Date: November 19, 2008





/s/ Jesus Oliveras



Jesus Oliveras

(Principal Financial Officer)
#### JACMAR PACIFIC PIZZA CORPORATION, etc., Appellant, v. John A. HUSTON, Appellee.

Nos. 85-1779, 86-71.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Feb. 12, 1987.

*92Leslie King O’Neal of Markel, McDon-ough & O’Neal, Orlando, for appellant.

Newman D. Brock, Altamonte Springs, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a negligence case where compensatory and punitive damages were awarded.

In order to prove entitlement to punitive damages it is required that the plaintiff establish that the conduct of the defendant was tantamount to willful, intentional and wanton disregard for others. *Chrysler Corporation, etc. v. Wolmer,*499 So.2d 823 (Fla.1986); *American Cynamid Co. v. Roy,*498 So.2d 859 (Fla.1986). Here, while there was proof that appellant Jac-mar was negligent and should compensate appellee for his injuries, there was insufficient proof to establish that the conduct of appellant justifies the punitive damage award.

Appellee Huston was injured by an underage drunk driver who had consumed beer at Shakey’s Pizza Parlor, owned by Jacmar Pacific Pizza Corporation. The minor had attended a private company party at the pizza parlor. The bartenders at the pizza parlor had been instructed to use their discretion in checking identification of persons who were served alcoholic beverages at private parties.

On the night of the company party, the bartenders were instructed to serve only one man from the private party. The bartender would fill the pitcher of beer and place it on the bar for the man to take back to the tables. The female bartender testified that she only served this man. However, the minor testified that he went to the bar to have a pitcher of beer refilled and the female bartender served him. There was conflicting evidence as to whether the minor appeared to be a juvenile.

The minor was driven from the pizza parlor to a friend’s house. From there, the minor rode his motorcycle home. On the way to his house, the minor collided with Huston’s automobile.

The purposes of punitive damages, to punish the offender and to deter others from similar action, are met only when the defendant’s behavior transcends the level of simple negligence, and even gross negligence, and enters the realm of wanton intentionality, exaggerated recklessness, or such an extreme degree of negligence as to parallel an intentional and reprehensible act. *American Cynamid Co. v. Roy,*498 So.2d at 860. The character of negligence necessary to sustain a conviction for manslaughter is the same as that required to sustain a recovery for punitive damages. *White Construction Co. v. Dupont,*455 So.2d 1026, 1028 (Fla.1984). Under no view of the evidence does Jac-mar’s conduct reach the willful and wanton level necessary to support the award for punitive damages. The facts simply do not reflect the kind of flagrant misconduct that would justify a finding of intentional disregard for the safety of others.

We affirm the award of compensatory damages, but we reverse the award of punitive damages.

*93AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATIONS**





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 quarterly report of Exobox Technologies Corp. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Robert B. Dillon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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, these financial statements were not reviewed
      by
      our independent registered public accountants; and





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







Date:
                June 19, 2007/s/
                Robert B. DillonChief
                Executive Officer