alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004094EN.01001701.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/17

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 10 February 2004

in Case C-85/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon): Mavrona & Sia OE v Delta Etaireia Symmetochon AE (1)

1

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 86/653/EEC - Coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents - Applicability to commercial agents)

(2004/C 94/34)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-85/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (Greece) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Mavrona & Sia OE and Delta Etaireia Symmetochon AE — on the interpretation of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ L 382, p. 17) Ä the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 10 February 2004, in which it has ruled:

Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that persons who act on behalf of a principal, but in their own name, do not come within the scope of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ No C 112,10.5.2003

1

---
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE.

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT 

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S 

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT 

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 31 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 31

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 10, 2019

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall for a ceremony as part of the 
 commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR HOLOCAUST DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE 
              CEREMONY.

    Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be 
used on April 29, 2019, for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of 
the days of remembrance

              

 of victims of the Holocaust. Physical preparations for the ceremony 
shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the 
Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 9, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Document

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED
HOME BANK
SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT




            This Amendment (“Amendment”) is entered into as of the 23rd day of May 2022, by and between Home Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”) and Darren G. Guidry (the “Executive”).


WITNESSETH


            WHEREAS, the Bank and the Executive previously entered into an Amended and Restated Salary Continuation Agreement, dated as of May 20, 2019 (the “Agreement”); and


            WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in order to change the amount of benefit, as provided in Section 2.1.1 and 2.3.1 thereof.


            NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:


                        1.         Amount of Benefit.       The annual benefit under Section 2.1.1 is One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000).


                        2.         Amount of Benefit.       The benefit under Section 2.3.1 is an amount equal to the greater of (i) the Accrual balance as of the end of the Plan Year immediately preceding Executive’s Separation from Service or (ii) Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000).


3.         Except to the extent expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue unmodified and shall remain in full force and effect.


            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year first written above.


ATTEST:                                                                 HOME BANK, N.A.




By: /s/ Daniel G. Guidry                          By:   /s/ John W. Bordelon                
       Daniel G. Guidry                                                  John W. Bordelon
       Corporate Secretary                                              Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer


                                                                                 EXECUTIVE




                                                                                 /s/ Darren E. Guidry                        
           Darren E. Guidry
July 7, 2015

Mr. Richard Wildman

1634 Monroe Avenue

Rochester, NY 14618

Dear Mr. Wildman:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 26th 2015, exemption request on behalf of Agrinetix, LLC into the 

public docket (No. FAA-2015-2482), but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Thomas Kirchner, certify that: 

  1) I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-QSB of FalconTarget, Inc.;  

  2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit 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 quarterlyreport;  

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

  4) The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  

  a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based upon such evaluation; and  

  c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and  

  5) The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):  

  a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlswhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation and  

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

Date: November 17, 2006

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner 

    Thomas Kirchner

    Chief Executive Officer
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4142



#  T HOMAS J OHN M AJEED , a/k/a Isaac Abram Abraham,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CR-00-204) Submitted: November 26, 2001 Decided: December 17, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Thomas John Majeed, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM:Thomas John Majeed pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute in excess of fifty grams of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to 292 months’ imprisonment. Majeed, proceeding pro se on appeal, claims that: (1) his sentence violates the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000); (2) defense counsel was ineffective because he had a conflict of interest; and (3) the district court erred by sentencing him as a career offender. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We find that the district court’s failure to inform Majeed that drug quantity was an element of the offense that had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. See United States v. Perez , ___ F.3d ___, 2001 WL 1346135 (8th Cir. Oct. 31, 2001); United States v. Dinnall , 269 F.3d 418 (4th Cir. 2001). We further find that Majeed’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not properly before this court. Such claims should be raised in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. United States v. King , 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Finally, there is no merit to Majeed’s claim that the district court improperly sentenced him as a career offender. We affirm the conviction and sentence. We deny Majeed’s motion for injunctive relief. 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 2 U NITED S TATES v. M AJEED
[No. 18498-2-II.

Division Two.

August 9, 1996.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Robert D. Mitchelson, *Appellant,*and Brenda A. Mitchelson, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 91-3-00670-3, Don L. McCulloch, J., entered July 5, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, A.C.J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Armstrong, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32.3**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**




**PURSUANT
      TO**




**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**









I,
      Peter
      C. Mann, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this quarterly report of
      Prestige Brands International, LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended December
      31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable, and that information contained
      in such quarterly report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of Prestige Brands International,
      LLC.




**/s/
                P****eter****C. M****ann**Name:Peter
                C. MannTitle:Manager,
                President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:February
                14, 2006
SIMON A. SANCHEZ

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 0203

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed June 1, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Waddell A. Wallace , Judge

.

Simon A. Sanchez, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Attorney

G eneral, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
**EXHIBIT 32.4**

 

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

 

I, Peter J. Anderson, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this quarterly report of Prestige BrandsInternational, LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable, and that informationcontained in such quarterly report fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of Prestige Brands International,LLC.

 
|   | **/s/ PETER J. ANDERSON** |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Name:                     | Peter J.  Anderson |
|   | Title:                    | Chief  Financial Officer |
|   | Date:                     | August 9,  2005 |

 

1

----
U. S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICE OF SALE OF COTTON

FOR RELEASE AT 4:00 P.M. CT November 26, 2019

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service today announced the sale of Cotton. The cotton bales were sold under 

Invitation 2020U0005 dated November 25, 2019.

Invitation 2020U0005

Catalog 

Lot No. Catalog Location Purchaser Pounds 

Sold 

Price Sold (per 

Pound) CCC Revenue 

2 PORTLAND, AR ECOM USA 64,272 0.5734 $ 36,853.56 

3 PORTLAND, AR ECOM USA 95,846 0.5734 $ 54,958.10 

160,118 $ 91,811.66
#### In the Matter of the Petition of J.A.A., Appellant, For the Adoption of a Child, C.M.R., v. C.R., Appellee.

No. 80CA0355.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Sept. 11, 1980.

Brian Maguire, Denver, for appellant.

John M. Case, P.C., John M. Case, Little-ton, for appellee.

COYTE, Judge.

Stepfather appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for adoption of his stepchild. We affirm.

After hearing on the petition, the trial court found that even though the natural father lived in the same area as the child, he had failed to contact the child for a period of three years and had failed to pay child support, that the natural father had abandoned the child and that his parental rights were subject to termination, that the child is well cared for by the stepfather and has been integrated into the stepfather’s home, and that the stepfather is a fit and proper person to adopt the child. However, the court concluded that there was no compelling reason to sever the parent-child relationship so as to permit the child’s adoption by the stepfather, that it would be in the best interest of the child to maintain and develop a relationship with his natural father, and that the development of such relationship outweighs the possible adverse effect of the natural father again abandoning the child as he has in the past.

As pertinent here § 19-4-112, C.R.S. 1973, provides for a hearing on the petition for adoption, for a decree setting forth the court’s findings, and for a final decree of adoption if the court is satisfied as to: the availability of the child for adoption; and the fact that the best interest of the child will be served by the adoption.

While the trial court found that the child was otherwise available for adoption, see § 19 — 4-107(l)(e)(II), C.R.S. 1973, the trial court also found that, as of the time of this petition, it was not in the best interest of *743the child to proceed with the adoption. It therefore dismissed the petition. This decision is within the discretion of the trial court. *See*§ 19-4-112(4), C.R.S. 1973; *cf. People In the Interest of C.S.,*Colo., 613 P.2d 1304, (1980).

The record includes psychological evaluations of the principals in this action submitted by several mental health professionals. All of the reports recommended that it would not be in the best interest of the child to proceed with the adoption at the present time.

Since the record contains evidence which supports the findings of the trial court, these findings are binding on us on appeal. *See Linley v. Hanson,*173 Colo. 239, 477 P.2d 453 (1970).

Judgment affirmed.

PIERCE and RULAND, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  INTREorg  Systems,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,  2008,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Jeff
Huitt,  Chief Financial 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:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date: August 19, 2008



By:       /s/ Jeff Huitt
         -----------------------------
         Jeff Huitt
         Chief Financial Officer
Platform i.e. i.e.





Applicable Servicing Criteria





Period










| | • | The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




| | • | The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange
            Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




| | • | Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
| | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------














/s/ James Maitland


Managing Director








Asset-backed Transactions and Securities Constituting the Platform
 
 DEAL NAME  DEAL NAME
  AMCAR 2017-2  SDART 2022-7
 AMCAR 2017-3  VALET 2018-1
 AMCAR 2018-2  VALT 2019-A
 AMCAR 2018-3  VALT 2020-A
 AMCAR 2019-3  VALT 2022-A
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norma Jean Johnson NARISI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-2448

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 20, 1976.

*1214Percy Foreman, Dick DeGuerin, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Michael P. Carnes, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Judith A. Shepherd, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before COLEMAN, GOLDBERG and GEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir., *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

The district court has failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 11(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, by not personally informing appellant of the constitutionally protected rights which she would be waiving if her guilty plea was accepted, and by not ascertaining that appellant understood those rights and voluntarily waived them. *McCarthy*v. *United States,*394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969); *United States v. Crook,*5 Cir. 1976, 526 F.2d 708; *Boykin*v. *Alabama,*395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).

Mrs. Narisi’s conviction is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings.