alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 70I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-1002 |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 070I |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Rocznik 634 marca 2020 |

ISSN 1977-1002

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 070I

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Rocznik 634 marca 2020

---

| Spis treści | Strona |
| --- | --- |
| | Sprostowania |
| | Sprostowanie ogłoszenia o naborze na stanowisko nr PE/242/S – Dyrektor (k/m) (grupa funkcyjna AD, grupa zaszeregowania 14) – Dyrekcja Generalna ds. Innowacji i Wsparcia Technologicznego – Dyrekcja ds. Publikacji, Innowacji i Zarządzania Danymi ( Dz.U. C 065A z 28.2.2020 ) | 1 |

Spis treści

Strona

Sprostowania

Sprostowanie ogłoszenia o naborze na stanowisko nr PE/242/S – Dyrektor (k/m) (grupa funkcyjna AD, grupa zaszeregowania 14) – Dyrekcja Generalna ds. Innowacji i Wsparcia Technologicznego – Dyrekcja ds. Publikacji, Innowacji i Zarządzania Danymi ( Dz.U. C 065A z 28.2.2020 )

( Dz.U. C 065A z 28.2.2020 )

1

---

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

Sprostowania

| 4.3.2020 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | CI 70/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2020

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

CI 70/1

---

Sprostowanie ogłoszenia o naborze na stanowisko nr PE/242/S – Dyrektor (k/m) (grupa funkcyjna AD, grupa zaszeregowania 14) – Dyrekcja Generalna ds. Innowacji i Wsparcia Technologicznego – Dyrekcja ds. Publikacji, Innowacji i Zarządzania Danymi

(
  Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej C 65 A z dnia 28 lutego 2020 r.
  )

(2020/C 70 I/01)

Strona 57, pkt 2 „Miejsce pracy”:

zamiast:

„Luksemburg”,

powinno być:

„Bruksela”.

---
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Gerri SCHWARTZBACH, Appellee.

No. 87-0255.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 7, 1987.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Eddie J. Bell, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We hold that the record in this case supports the trial court’s findings of fact and ultimate conclusion. However, we do not adopt the specific language of the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress. We do not believe a person’s consent to a search is per se involuntary whenever law enforcement officers board a commercial carrier such as a bus or other similar forms of transportation.

LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

concurring specially.

I concur in the affirmance of the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress and do so because I believe the record supports the trial court’s findings of *757fact and conclusions of law set out in the order:

> On August 6, 1986, the Defendant was seated in a Greyhound bus parked in the West Palm Beach Bus station when she was approached by two Palm Beach County Sheriff Deputies, Deputies Terry Marvin and Dale Allen. As part of their duties with the smuggling unit of the Sheriff’s Office, Marvin and Allen would board northbound buses for the purpose of obtaining passengers’ consent to search their carry-on baggage.

> Deputy Marvin testified that he initiated conversation with Defendant and asked her if she would consent to a search of her duffle bag. Deputy Marvin testified that he obtained oral consent; a written consent to search form was not used. Defendant was not advised she had the right to refuse consent.

> By stipulation of counsel, part of Deputy Allen’s deposition was to be heard and considered by the court on the Motion to Suppress. Deputy Allen stated in deposition that Deputy Marvin had asked Defendant if she “minded” if he searched her bag and that her answer was “yes, sure.” This would make the facts of this case almost indistinguishable from those in *State v. Kassidy,*495 So.2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (no consent when Defendant asked “Do you mind if I search?” Defendant answered, “yeah.”); and *Robinson v. State,*388 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (“Do you mind if I pat you down?” “Sure.”)

> Even assuming the Defendant consented to the search, that consent must be voluntary and not the product of coercion. The prospect of being a seated passenger on a commercial public transportation vehicle and seeing police officers come on board with their badges prominently displayed checking each passenger is an intimidating and coercive situation in and of itself.

> I find that even if consent was given in this case it was coerced by the situation I have just described.

The Motion to Suppress is Granted,
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO  RULES 13A-15(E) AND 15D-15(E) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Birmingham Bloomfield Bancshares,
Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;
 4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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.
    
    [Reserved];
 c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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
 d.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
  /s/ Richard J. MillerRichard J. MillerChief Financial Officer
#### Audrey Propp, an Infant, by Anna Greenfield, Her Guardian ad Litem et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Bennett Rothenberg et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

March 31, 1958.

*Irving Moldauer*for plaintiffs.

*Chapman, Walsh & O’Connell for*defendants.

Benjamin Brenner, J.

The principal question presented here is whether plaintiffs’ bill of particulars is to be served before. or after defendants are examined before trial. The action is one to recover for fraud due essentially to defendants’ lack of religious orthodoxy, it being the main claim that the defendants, the husband and his mother, misrepresented to plaintiffs, the wife and her mother, their religious intentions, beliefs and practices for the purpose of inducing consent to the marriage. Such allegations of fraud are thus largely directed to the nature and degree of personal convictions which only imperfectly can be elicited upon an examination before trial.

In my- view an examination ordinarily ought to precede the service of a bill which helps to particularize and limit the issues to be tried *(Lustig*v. *Long champs,*279 App. Div. 928). But the case is otherwise where, as here, plaintiffs do not disclaim *585knowledge of the particulars *(Tanenbaum*v. *Lindheim,*54 App. Div. 188) nor submit an affidavit claiming such lack of knowledge *(Parker-Lauer Realty Co.*v. *Long Island R. R. Co.,*263 App. Div. 955). Belying as they do on subjective mental processes and the religious beliefs of the defendants, of which plaintiffs themselves seem to be peculiarly aware, they are not entitled to examine the defendants before service of the bill of particulars.

Motion to modify defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars is granted in the following respects: The word “ facts ” is substituted for the words “ in what manner it will be claimed” and the words “in detail” are deleted in item 4. Item 6 is stricken; the word ‘ ‘ exact ’ ’ is stricken from item 7a; the words “facts to ” are substituted for the words “ in what manner it will” in item 8; the words “facts to” are substituted for the words “ in detail in what manner it will ” in item 9; the Avords “ facts to ” are substituted for the words ‘ ‘ the manner in which it will ’ ’ in item 12. Plaintiffs shall serve said bill of particulars in accordance with the demand, as herein modified, prior to the commencement of defendants’ examination before trial.

Settle order on notice.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC (the Company) onForm 10-Q for the period ended May 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Hunt, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

     (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

     (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

|   |   |                                    |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| By:    |   | /s/ Steven D. Hunt                      |
|   |   |                                    |
|   |   | Steven D. Hunt*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: July 10, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2362 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2362

 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Thermostabilizer KL3-
                                 2049.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Voinovich (for himself and Mr. Brown) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Thermostabilizer KL3-
                                 2049.

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

SECTION 1. THERMOSTABILIZER KL3-2049.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.77 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Thermostabilizer KL3-2049) 
is amended by striking the date in the effective column period and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (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>
```
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Sept. 16, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 9

- 1 0 6 1 8 N o n
- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 7

- 0 0 7 9 1

- C V

- 4

- V E H

J A M E S E D W A R D S P E N C E R ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l a n t ,

v e r s u s

T R O Y K I N G , G O V E R N O R B O B R I L E Y , G E N E M I T C H E L L , C H A R L E S A N D R E W S , C H R I S T O P H E R M U R P H Y , T E D E

. S E X O N , e t a l

. ,

D e f e n d a n t s
- A p p e l l e e s

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f A l a b a m a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( S e p t e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 )B e f

o r e T J O F L A T , E D M O N D S O N a n d C A R N E S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :

J a m e s E d w a r d S p e n c e r , a p r o s e p r i s o n e r , a p p e a l s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s
d i s m i s s a l o f h i s 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3 c o m p l a i n t f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m u p o n w h i c h

r e l i e f c o u l d b e g r a n t e d

. A l t h o u g h w e c o n s t r u e p r o s e f i l i n g s l i b e r a l l y , S p e n c e r ’ s

a p p e a l g i v e s u s v e r y l i t t l e t o w o r k w i t h

. E v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t S p e n c e r h a s

s u f f i c i e n t l y r a i s e d a n y i s s u e s , h i s a r g u m e n t s a l l l a c k m e r i t

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s

o r d e r a d o p t e d t h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e w e l l

- r e a s o n e d r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h a t

r e j e c t e d S p e n c e r ’ s m u l t i t u d e o f a r g u m e n t s

. W e a f f i r m f o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n t h a t

r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n

.
A F F I R M E D
.

2
**EXHIBIT 12.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION********

 

I, Luis Mañas Antón, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Repsol YPF, S.A.; 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany 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 report;

 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.    The company’s other certifyingofficer 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 company and have: 

 

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; 

 

(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’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 periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.    The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’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 financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’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 thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: June 30, 2005
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors and Stockholders of 

IdentiPHI, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Nos. 333-92072, 333-74253, 033-668832, 333-118249 and 333-133016) on Form S-8, registration statements (Nos. 033-62430, 333-75789, 333-23467, 333-01510, 333-58575, 333-54084, 333-112287, 333-119778, 333-114594, 333-126185,333-135626 and 333-140723) on Form S-3, registration statement (No. 333-97221) on Form S-2 and registration statement (No. 333-68642) on Form S-1 of IdentiPHI, Inc., of our report dated March 25, 2008, with respect to the balance sheets ofIdentiPHI, Inc. as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related statements of operations, shareholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form10-K of IdentiPHI, Inc. 

Our report dated March 25, 2008 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that IdentiPHI, Inc. has suffered recurringlosses from operations and has a net capital deficiency, which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

/s/ PMB Helin Donovan, LLP 

Austin, Texas 

March 31, 2008
Exhibit 99.2




				Exhibit 99(ii)

			    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
				 18 U.S.C. ss.1350
			     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
		    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

    In connection with the Quarterly Report of  Nutek  Oil  Inc. (the "Company")
on  Form  10-QSB  for  the  quarter  ended  March 31, 2004  as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date  therein specified (the "Report")
"Report"),  I,  Jason F. Griffith, Chief  Financial   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 to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements of  Section 13(a)
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/ Jason F. Griffith, CPA
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    JASON F. GRIFFITH, Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 17, 2004
Exhibit 32.2

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 quarterly report of QC Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas E. Nickerson, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 8, 2009



/s/ Douglas E. NickersonDouglas E. NickersonChief Financial Officer
#### Michael Dennis BOUDOIN v. Marsha Gwendolyn BOUDOIN.

No. 87-CC-0265.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re Boudoin, Michael Dennis; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 86-3248; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 86-1164.

Denied.

LEMMON, J., would grant the writ.
#### THEODORE LENCZYK *v.*CONNECTICUT DENTAL COMMISSION ET AL.

*Max F. Brunswick,*in support of the petition.

Decided April 8, 1998

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 936 (AC 16815), is denied.

MCDONALD, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE 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 Quarterly Report of KeyOn Communications Holdings, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jonathan Snyder, 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 to my knowledge:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                       
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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.

|                       |     |                               
|---------------------- | --- | ------------------------------
|Date: August
 14, 2008 | By: | /s/ Jonathan Snyder           
|                       |     |                               
|                       |     | Jonathan
 Snyder              
|                       |     | Chief
 Executive Officer      
|                       |     | (Principal
 Executive Officer)

---