alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2004277EN.01000601.xml

| 26.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 277/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 277/6

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 37/2004

of 23 April 2004

amending Annex IV (Energy) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex IV to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 19/2004 of 19 March 2004 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex IV to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 19/2004 of 19 March 2004 (1).

| (2) | Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement.

| (3) | The provisions of Directive 2002/91/EC shall not apply to Iceland, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The provisions of Directive 2002/91/EC shall not apply to Iceland,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 16 (Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex IV to the Agreement:

| ‘17. | 32002 L 0091: Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 65).
  The provisions of the Directive shall, for the purposes of the present Agreement, be read with the following adaptation:
  The provisions of the Directive shall not apply to Iceland.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘17.

32002 L 0091: Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 65).

The provisions of the Directive shall, for the purposes of the present Agreement, be read with the following adaptation:

The provisions of the Directive shall not apply to Iceland.’

Article 2

The text of Directive 2002/91/EC in the Norwegian language, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 24 April 2004, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 23 April 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

P. WESTERLUND

---

(1)  
  OJ L 127, 29.4.2004, p. 122.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 65.

2

(*1)  Constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Exhibit 11 - Computation of earnings per share


Earnings per common share were computed as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                       Thirteen Weeks Ended
                                                             -------------------------------------
In thousands, except share and per share amounts                   May 4,              May 3,
                                                                    1996                1997
                                                             ------------------  -----------------
<S>                                                           <C>                 <C>            
Net income (loss).......................................      $       (4,400)     $       (4,226)
                                                             ==================  =================
Weighted average shares:
     Weighted average shares -  Common (1)                         7,413,232           7,420,419
     Common stock equivalent pursuant  to                                                           
         APB 15 (2).....................................              61,246              72,373
                                                             ------------------  -----------------
Total weighted average shares...........................           7,474,478           7,492,792
                                                             ==================  =================
Net income (loss) per share applicable to                                                           
     common shares......................................      $        (0.59)     $        (0.56)
                                                             ==================  =================
</TABLE>
______________________                                 
(1)  The weighted  average shares  outstanding are based on the number of shares
     of Common Stock issued and outstanding.

(2)  In accordance with APB 15, the common stock  equivalents were calculated by
     applying the treasury  stock  method,  and limiting the number of shares of
     Common Stock  obtainable upon exercise of outstanding  options and warrants
     in the aggregate to 20% of the number of shares  outstanding  at the end of
     the period for which the computation is being made.
No. PD-0138-CR

CESAR GOMEZ $ IN THE COURT OF REQli

§ CRIMINAL APPEAfs^^^^PPaiS

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS § OF TEXAS APR 1? 2015

PRO SE MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE

AN ORIGINAL COPY ONLY OF THE ADe' AcOSta, Clerk

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:

COMES NOId, the Appellant/Petitioner in the above-styled and

numbered cause and respectfully moves this Honorable Court grant

leave to file an original copy only of the PetitldbEDraM

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPE/J! *

Discretionary Review and in support thereof utould shou the Court

APR 17 20;0

the following:

1. The style and number in the Tyler Court of Ap^beaAeOf§ta,:ClerK

Cesar Gomez v. The State of Texas, No. 12-13-00050-CR.

2. the Appellant/Petitioner moves that pursuant to Rule 2,

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court suspend Rule

9.3(b), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, that requires the

filing of eleven (11) copies of the Petition for Discretionary

review with the Court.

3. The facts relied upon to show good cause for this request

are, as follows: The Appellant is indigent and incarcerated and

does not have access to a photo copier. The Appellant is

presently not represented by counsel and intends to file a Pro Se

Petition for Discretionary Review.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, THE Appellant/Petitioner

respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant leave to

file an original copy only of the Petition for Discretionary

review with the Court.

Page 1 of 2
Respectfully submitted.

CeScyr feoWe-z.

Cesar Gomez

TDCD-ID # 18399B5

Eastham State Farm

2665 Prison Road # 1

Lovelady, Texas 75851

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The Appellant/Petitioner hereby certifies that a true and

correct copy of the foregoing Motion has been mailed to the

Office of the Criminal District Attorney for Smith County,

Dillion Matt Bringham III, 100 N. Broadway, Tyler, Texas 75702

and mailed via U.S. Mail, to the office of the State Prosecuting

Attorney, P.O. Box 12^05, Capitol Station, Austin, Teas 7B71 , on

the 15th day of April, 2015.

C^CAT fcoVifc-T

Cesar Gomez

TDCD-ID # 1839985

Eastham State Farm

2665 Prison Road # 1

Lovelady, Texas 75B51

Page 2 oe" 2
**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
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of infoUSA Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, (i) the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.   Date: August 9, 2004 */s/ Raj Das* Raj Das,  Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                        
<MULTIPLIER>                  1                
<CURRENCY>                    U. S. Dollars               
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-1998              
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1997   
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997   
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1   
<CASH>                             1,748,000  
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      8,083,000  
<ALLOWANCES>                       1,281,000  
<INVENTORY>                          239,000  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  96,808,000  
<PP&E>                             1,043,000  
<DEPRECIATION>                       662,000  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   100,459,000  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             68,983,000  
<BONDS>                                    0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0  
<PREFERRED>                                0  
<COMMON>                              78,000  
<OTHER-SE>                        31,398,000  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     100,459,000  
<SALES>                           36,265,000  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  36,265,000  
<CGS>                             31,136,000  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     31,136,000  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    5,128,000  
<INCOME-TAX>                       2,459,000  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                2,669,000  
<DISCONTINUED>                             0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0  
<CHANGES>                                  0   
<NET-INCOME>                       2,669,000   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .35  
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .35  
        


</TABLE>
# C_2016203EN.01002101.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/21

---

Article 43

The Commission shall discuss with the persons or undertakings all aspects of investment projects which relate to the objectives of this Treaty.

It shall communicate its views to the Member State concerned.

---
**Exhibit 23.5**

 

**DeGolyerand MacNaughton**

5001 Spring Valley Road

Suite 800 East

Dallas, Texas 75244

 

 

February 22, 2010

 

 

Nexen Inc.

801-7th Avenue S.W.

Calgary, Alberta  T2P 3P7

 

Board of Directors:

 

We hereby consent to referencesto DeGolyer and MacNaughton contained in the section entitled “Basis ofReserves Estimates” within “Reserves, Production and Related Information” asset out in Part I, Items 1&2 Business and Properties of the AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, of NexenInc. (the Form 10-K) and to the use of our three Report of Third Partyletter reports dated February 2, 2010, concerning the United Kingdom,Yemen Masila, and Nigeria, respectively, relating to our evaluation of certainoil and gas properties of Nexen Inc., which are included as exhibits in the Form 10-K.

 
|   | Very truly  yours,            |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   |                          |
|   |                          |
|   | /s/ DeGOLYER  and MacNAUGHTON |
|   |                          |
|   |                          |
|   | DeGOLYER  and MacNAUGHTON     |

 

----
Joint Motion to Dismiss Granted; Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing Denied as 

Moot; Majority and Concurring Memorandum Opinions issued February 10, 

2015, Withdrawn; Judgment issued February 10, 2015, Vacated; Appeal 

Dismissed; and Substitute Memorandum Opinion filed April 21, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00478-CV

BRAZOS PRESBYTERIAN HOMES, INC. D/B/A THE HALLMARK, 

Appellant

V.

AUGUST SCHUMACHER LANDER, AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF BETTY S. LANDER, DECEASED, Appellee

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-65993

S U B S T I T U T E M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an accelerated appeal from an interlocutory order signed May 30, 

2014, denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the underlying suit for failure to file 
2

an expert report under Section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies 

Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351 (West Supp. 2014). On 

February 10, 2015, this court issued its Majority and Concurring Memorandum 

Opinions. On March 12, 2015, appellee filed a motion for rehearing. On April 13, 

2015, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal because they have 

settled their dispute. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. 

We grant the parties’ joint motion to dismiss. We deny appellee’s motion for 

rehearing as moot. We order this court’s Majority and Concurring Memorandum 

Opinions issued February 10, 2015, withdrawn, and issue this per curiam opinion 

in their stead. This court’s judgment dated February 10, 2015, is vacated, and a 

new judgment is issued with this per curiam opinion ordering that each party shall 

bear its own costs of this appeal.

The appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, McCally, and Brown.
# C_2016202EN.01031801.xml

| | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/318 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/318

---

PROTOCOL (No 33)

CONCERNING ARTICLE 157 OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

HAVE AGREED upon the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

For the purposes of Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, benefits under occupational social security schemes shall not be considered as remuneration if and in so far as they are attributable to periods of employment prior to 17 May 1990, except in the case of workers or those claiming under them who have before that date initiated legal proceedings or introduced an equivalent claim under the applicable national law.

---
II 

Calendar No. 124 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1449 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 19, 2019 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3033 203rd Street in Olympia Fields, Illinois, 

as the ‘‘Captain Robert L. Martin Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CAPTAIN ROBERT L. MARTIN POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 3033 203rd Street in Olympia 

6 Fields, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Captain Robert L. Martin Post Office’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1449 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Captain Robert L. 

5 Martin Post Office’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 124 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1449 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostMartin Post Office’’. pia Fields, Illinois, as the ‘‘Captain Robert L. al Service located at 3033 203rd Street in OlymJUNE 19, 2019 

Reported without amendment 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                             800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       61
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         27
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,207
<PP&E>                                          11,189
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (198)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,155
<BONDS>                                          1,106
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,753
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,760
<SALES>                                            147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   147
<CGS>                                               37
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    12
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  90
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,251)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,251)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (237)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,417)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE 

STATE OF DELAWARE

 JOHN W. NOBLE 417 SOUTH STATE STREET

VICE CHANCELLOR DOVER, DELAWARE 19901

 TELEPHONE: (302) 739-4397

 FACSIMILE: (302) 739-6179

October 3, 2014

Thad J. Bracegirdle, Esquire Seth J. Reidenberg, Esquire 

Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle, LLC Tybout, Redfearn & Pell 

1300 North Grant Avenue, Suite 100 750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 400 

Wilmington, DE 19806 Wilmington, DE 19801

Mr. Christophe Laudamiel DreamAir LLC

313 West 19th Street, Apt. 32 c/o Christophe Laudamiel, President

New York, NY 10011 210 11th Avenue, Suite 1002

cl@leschristophs.com New York, NY 10001

cl@dreamair.mobi

Paul D. Brown, Esquire

Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP

1007 North Orange Street, Suite 1110

Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: Matthew v. Laudamiel, et al.

C.A. No. 5957-VCN

Date Submitted: September 9, 2014

Dear Mr. Laudamiel and Counsel:

Plaintiff Stewart Matthew has moved for reargument of that portion of the 

Court’s Letter Opinion and Order of July 21, 2014,1that granted Fläkt Woods 

 

1 Matthew v. Laudamiel, 2014 WL 3586594 (Del. Ch. July 21, 2014).

EFiled: Oct 03 2014 12:34PM EDT 

Transaction ID 56128155

Case No. 5957-VCN
Matthew v. Laudamiel, et al.

C.A. No. 5957-VCN

October 3, 2014

Page 2

Group S.A.’s (“Fläkt Woods”) motion to compel discovery into Plaintiff’s scenting 

activities after dissolution of Aeosphere. That requires the Court to consider 

whether its decision was influenced by a misunderstanding of material fact or a 

misapplication of law.2 The Court did not misunderstand Plaintiff’s claims or, in a 

material way, how he wanted to define the scope of discovery. Instead, the 

question was the scope of discovery to which Fläkt Woods is entitled.3 The 

Court’s conclusion was driven by the liberal standard for discovery. It may be that 

the discovery will not be useful, but that is not a conclusion that the Court can now 

draw.

The Plaintiff’s concerns with the Court’s application of law involved 

mitigation. Again, the information sought may not be especially probative, but, 

especially at the discovery stage, the scope must be allowed to acknowledge that 

similar substitute employment or compensation arrangements—i.e., not just those 

that are identical—may be an appropriate measure.4 

 

2

See, e.g., Salgado v. Mobile Servs. Int’l, LLC, 2012 WL 2903970, at *1 (Del. Ch. 

July 11, 2012).

3

It is not clear why Fläkt Woods’ discovery should be restricted by reference to 

Mr. Laudamiel’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Verified Complaint.

4

The necessary flexibility here makes drawing rigid lines difficult. 
Matthew v. Laudamiel, et al.

C.A. No. 5957-VCN

October 3, 2014

Page 3

Accordingly, the Motion for Reargument is denied.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

/s/ John W. Noble

JWN/cap

cc: Register in Chancery-K

 

5

It may be that Plaintiff will not value his subsequent employment efforts, but this 

does not necessarily preclude Fläkt Woods from using this information to show an 

offset or otherwise to rebut Plaintiff’s analysis.
July 17, 2008

28355

#### State v. Lucero

Affirmed
# C_2016202EN.01002101.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/21

---

Article 12

National Parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union:

| (a) | through being informed by the institutions of the Union and having draft legislative acts of the Union forwarded to them in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

through being informed by the institutions of the Union and having draft legislative acts of the Union forwarded to them in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union;

| (b) | by seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

by seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

| (c) | by taking part, within the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice, in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in that area, in accordance with Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and through being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust's activities in accordance with Articles 88 and 85 of that Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

by taking part, within the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice, in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in that area, in accordance with Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and through being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust's activities in accordance with Articles 88 and 85 of that Treaty;

| (d) | by taking part in the revision procedures of the Treaties, in accordance with Article 48 of this Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

by taking part in the revision procedures of the Treaties, in accordance with Article 48 of this Treaty;

| (e) | by being notified of applications for accession to the Union, in accordance with Article 49 of this Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

by being notified of applications for accession to the Union, in accordance with Article 49 of this Treaty;

| (f) | by taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national Parliaments and with the European Parliament, in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

by taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national Parliaments and with the European Parliament, in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union.

---