alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Euroopa Liidu C 123A/16.

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 123A |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 63. aastakäik16. aprill 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 123A

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

63. aastakäik16. aprill 2020

---

| Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- |
| | Parandused |
| 2020/C 123 A/01 | Teade avalike konkursside korraldamise kohta — EPSO/AD/375/20 – taani keele (DA) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/376/20 – kreeka keele (EL) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/377/20 – prantsuse keele (FR) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/378/20 – horvaadi keele (HR) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/379/20 – poola keele (PL) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7), parandus ( ELT C 72 A, 5.3.2020 ) | 1 |

Sisukord

Lehekülg

Parandused

2020/C 123 A/01

Teade avalike konkursside korraldamise kohta — EPSO/AD/375/20 – taani keele (DA) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/376/20 – kreeka keele (EL) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/377/20 – prantsuse keele (FR) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/378/20 – horvaadi keele (HR) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/379/20 – poola keele (PL) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7), parandus ( ELT C 72 A, 5.3.2020 )

( ELT C 72 A, 5.3.2020 )

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

Parandused

| 16.4.2020 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 123/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2020

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 123/1

---

Teade avalike konkursside korraldamise kohta — EPSO/AD/375/20 – taani keele (DA) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/376/20 – kreeka keele (EL) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/377/20 – prantsuse keele (FR) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/378/20 – horvaadi keele (HR) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/379/20 – poola keele (PL) juristid-lingvistid (AD 7), parandus

(
  Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 72 A, 5. märts 2020
  )

(2020/C 123 A/01)

Leheküljel 1

asendatakse

„Kandideerimisavalduse esitamise tähtaeg: 7. aprill 2020 kell 12.00 päeval Brüsseli aja järgi“

järgmisega:

järgmisega:

„Kandideerimisavalduse esitamise tähtaeg: 5. mai 2020 kell 12.00 päeval Brüsseli aja järgi“.

Leheküljel 6

asendatakse

asendatakse

„Kandideerimisavaldus tuleb esitada elektrooniliselt EPSO veebisaidil http://jobs.eu-careers.eu hiljemalt

7. aprilliks 2020 kell 12.00 päeval Brüsseli aja järgi.“

järgmisega:

järgmisega:

„Kandideerimisavaldus tuleb esitada elektrooniliselt EPSO veebisaidil http://jobs.eu-careers.eu hiljemalt

5. maiks 2020 kella 12.00ks päeval Brüsseli aja järgi.“

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20672

Summary Calendar

WAYNE E. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., also known as Countrywide Funding

Corporation, Inc.; BANKER’S TRUST CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA;

and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., also known as Deutsche

Asset Management,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 4:06-cv-2874

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (“Deutsche Bank”) foreclosed on

Appellant Wayne E. Williams’ property, Williams filed a pro se lawsuit alleging

violation of numerous consumer protection statutes. The district court granted

summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 13, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20672

2

Williams argues on appeal that the party that authorized the foreclosure

sale lacked authority to do so. As the sole basis for this argument, Williams

contends that there are contradictions in Defendants’ summary judgment

evidence, namely one documentthat correctly shows thatthe loan was owned by

Vendee Mortgage Trust 1995-3 and other documents that reference Deutsche

Bank as trustee for Vendee Mortgage Trust 1994-2 (rather than 1995-3).

Williams contends that the district court erred in finding that the incorrect

numbers in Defendants’ documents were mere clerical or typographical errors

that did not prevent Deutsche Bank from lawfully foreclosing.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. United

States v. Lawrence, 276 F.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court noted

uncontradicted evidence that Deutsche Bank was the trustee for both Vendee

Mortgage Trust 1995-3 and Vendee Mortgage Trust 1994-2. The typographical

errors did not change the fact that Deutsche Bank was the trustee with power

to foreclose on Williams’ property, and it was Deutsche Bank that authorized the

foreclosure sale. The district court found that the foreclosure notice and sale

were not defective and held that the apparent clerical or typographical errors in

the foreclosure documents did not deprive Williams of the due process afforded

to debtors under the Texas Property Code. Williams has cited to no evidence or

authority that the incorrect numbers were anything other than typographical

errors, that the errors harmed him, or made any difference whatsoever in the

foreclosure process, or that this type of error entitles him to any legal relief.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
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 Quarterly Report of Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, James Hooke, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:




(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 Company.




By:
/s/ James HookeJames HookeChief Executive OfficerNovember 3, 2010












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

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

138695

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138695 COA: 290226 Oakland CC: 07-217453-FC DOMINIC NARVELL NASH, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 19, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
## Environmental Quality Council Hearing

September 12 , 2013

-- Public Notice

Newspaper Date of Publication

Casper Star T ribune July 15 and 16 , 2013

Gille tte Ne ws Record July 15 , 2013

Cody Enterprise July 15 , 2013

Wyoming Tribune

- Eagle July 15 , 2013

Rock Springs Daily Rocket Miner July 16 , 2013
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                              NEUROGEN CORPORATION

               COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE

       (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    For the Year Ended
                                                       December 31,
                                                  1996               1995        1994
                                           -----------------  ----------------  -------
                                                      Fully             Fully
                                           Primary   Diluted  Primary  Diluted  Primary
                                           -------   -------  -------  -------  -------
<S>                                        <C>       <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding        14,144    14,144   11,267   11,267    9,528

Dilutive effect of:
Warrants                                       42        42       39       43    -- (1)

Stock Options                               1,263     1,263    1,173    1,558    -- (1)
                                           ------    ------  -------  -------  -------
Common and Common Equivalent Shares        15,449    15,449   12,479   12,868    9,528
                                           ======    ======  =======  =======  =======
  1. Net Income (Loss)                     $5,894    $5,894  $13,353  $13,353  $(6,651)
                                           ======    ======  =======  =======  =======
  Net Income (Loss) per Common Share       $ 0.38    $ 0.38  $  1.07    $1.04  $  (.70)
                                           ======    ======  =======  =======  =======
</TABLE>


__________________________
(1)  The Common Stock Equivalents have not been included as their inclusion
     would be antidilutive.
#### Roccograndi Unemployment Compensation Case.

Argued March 5, 1962.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Ervin, Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Woodside, J., absent).

*Jerome L. Cohen,*with Mm *Henry Creenwald,*and *Rosenn, Jenkins &. Creenwald,*for appellants.

*373
      *Sydney Reuben,*Assistant Attorney. General', with him *David Stahl,*Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

March 21, 1962:

Opinion by

Montgomery, J.,

The appellants are all members of a family who are involved in the wrecking business together. Each owns' 40 shares of stock in the company which has 205 outstanding shares, and all three are officers of the company. The officers of the company, during periods of insufficient work to employ all the members of the family, hold a meeting and by majority vote decide which members shall be “laid off”. It was decided by majority vote of all the stockholders that the appellants would be “laid off” because it was their respective turns. Immediately thereafter claims for unemployment compensation benefits were filed by the three appellants. The Bureau of Employment Security de-' nied the claims on the grounds that the appellants were self-employed. Upon appeal the referee reversed the bureau and held the appellants to be entitled to benefits. The Board of Review reversed the referee’s decision, holding that the appellants had sufficient control to lay themselves off and that they did just that. Therefore the appellants were self-employed and must be denied eligibility for benefits under section 402(h) and section 402(b) (1) of the law.

This case is ruled by *DePriest Unemployment Compensation Case,*196 Pa. Superior Ct. 612, 177 A. 2d 20, in which this Court held that the corporate entity may be ignored in determining whether the claimants, in fact, were “unemployed” under the act, or were self-employed persons whose business merely proved to be unremunerative during the period for which the claim for benefits was made.

Decisions affirmed.
ENCLOSURE 3:

Statement of Certification

I certify under penalty of law that I have examined and amfamiliar with the information in the enclosed documents, including all attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief. true and complete

. I am aware that there are significant penalties for knowingly submitting false statements and information, including the possibility of fines or imprisonmentpursuant to section 1 J 3(c)(2) of the CAA, and 18 US. 

### C. §§ 1001 and 1341.

(Signature)

## fH1 \.., (Y)ANA(bl\

## L~**u~** 

## !9NA**OP~It 71~WS**  (Title)
Exhibit 32.2  Section 1350 Certification  In connection with the quarterly report of Lotus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Yan Zeng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  November 12, 2009
        /s/ Yan Zeng
 Yan Zeng, Chief Financial Officer, principal financial and accounting officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Quarterly Report of Lotus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Liu Zhong Yi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2.           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Liu Zhong Yi Liu Zhong Yi, CEO and President, Principal Executive Officer February 21, 2008  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 of the MacroShares $100 Oil Down Trust (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Samuel Masucci, III, principal executive officer of MACRO Securities Depositor, LLC, which acts as the depositor for the Registrant (the "Depositor"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.

The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.



Date: August 14, 2008

| |     |                                                                                  
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Samuel Masucci, III                                                          
| |     | Samuel Masucci, III
Chief Executive Officer of Depositor, on behalf of Registrant
Exhibit 10.59


 


EXHIBIT B
(GARY QUISENBERRY)


 




	
  Age of Insured at the

  Time of Death

  	
   

  	
  Amount of Death Benefit, or 100%

  of the net-at-risk, whichever amount is less

  	
   

  
	
  65

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  93,150

  	
   

  
	
  66

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  91,476

  	
   

  
	
  67

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  89,393

  	
   

  
	
  68

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  86,803

  	
   

  
	
  69

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  83,541

  	
   

  
	
  70

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  79,638

  	
   

  
	
  71

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  75,016

  	
   

  
	
  72

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  69,592

  	
   

  
	
  73

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  63,271

  	
   

  
	
  74

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  55,890

  	
   

  
	
  75

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  47,460

  	
   

  
	
  76

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  37,755

  	
   

  
	
  77

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  26,730

  	
   

  
	
  78

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  14,198

  	
   

  
	
  79

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2
----

| (i)   | your      waiver of rights under this release is knowing and voluntary and in      compliance with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of      1990; |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (ii)   | you      understand the terms of thisrelease; |
|------------------|-----------------------------------------------|

| (iii)   | the      consideration provided in Paragraph 2 represents consideration over and      above that to which you otherwise would be entitled had you not signed      this release, and that the consideration is in exchange for the signing of      this release; |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (iv)   | the      Company is hereby advising you in writing to consult with your attorney      prior to executing this release; |
|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (v)   | the      Company is giving you a period of twenty-one days within which to consider      this release; |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (vi)   | following      your execution of this release you have seven (7) days in which to revoke      this release by written notice. To be effective, the revocation must be      made in writing and delivered to and received by Cathy      Cavanna, Vice President-Human Resources, Presstek, Inc., 55 Executive      Drive, Hudson, NH 03501, no later than 4:00 p.m. on the seventh day      after you execute this release. An attempted revocation not actually      received by Ms. Cavanna before the revocation deadline will not be      effective; and |
|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (vii)   | this      entire Agreement shall be void and of no force and effect if you choose to      so revoke, and if you choose not to so revoke this Agreement shall then      become fully effective andenforceable. |
|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4271

KORELL ELLIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

James C. Fox, Senior District Judge.

(CR-01-93)

Submitted: December 6, 2002

Decided: December 27, 2002

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Geoffrey W. Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, P.L.L.C., Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States

Attorney, Kimberly A. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney,

Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Korell Ellis appeals his conviction and 295-month sentence following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute crack

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and carrying or

possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000).

Ellis claims the Assistant United States Attorney failed to inform

his defense counsel regarding the drug quantity attributable to him as

relevant conduct during plea negotiations. Ellis further contends that

this constituted a breach of the plea agreement. Ellis also claims he

relied on the predictions of counsel regarding his likely sentence and

that these predictions were based on his counsel’s discussions with

the prosecutor. At his Rule 11 hearing, however, Ellis affirmed that

no one had promised him what his sentence would be. Moreover,

Ellis concedes his plea agreement does not contain any language

regarding his guidelines range or promises from the Government as

to his guidelines range. 

During the plea hearing, Ellis was informed of the process by

which the relevant conduct determination would be made and the

maximum sentence he faced. Ellis told the court that he had not been

promised a specific sentence and that no one made any prediction as

to what his sentence might be. The court informed Ellis that it would

make an independent determination regarding relevant conduct and

that a presentence report would be prepared by the probation office.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. The

prosecutor advised the district court that defense counsel was

informed that other individuals had been interviewed and "put weight

on the defendant." Ellis cites no evidence in the record that these

statements were incorrect or that the Government misled defense

counsel during plea negotiations. 

2 UNITED STATES v. ELLIS
Accordingly, we affirm Ellis’ conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. ELLIS 3