alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 22004D0015 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22004D0015

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 15/2004 of 6 February 2004 amending Annex XXII (Company Law) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 116 , 22/04/2004 P. 0068 - 0068 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 15/2004

of 6 February 2004

amending Annex XXII (Company Law) 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 XXII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 176/2003 of 5 December 2003(1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE)(2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 10b (Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XXII to the Agreement:

"10c. 32003 R 1435: Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE) (OJ L 207, 18.8.2003, p. 1)."

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, 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 7 February 2004, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee(3).

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, 6 February 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

P. Westerlund

(1) OJ L 88, 25.3.2004, p. 53.

(2) OJ L 207, 18.8.2003, p. 1.

(3) Constitutional requirements indicated.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.3

                            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 this Quarterly Report of Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 1, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
G. Peek, Chief Accounting 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.


/s/ David G. Peek

David G. Peek
Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
November 19, 2003


                                       24
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00095-CR

ROBERTO ALFREDO VENTURA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 182nd District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1355473).

TO THE 182ND DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 3rd day of February 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or 

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by 

the trial court on January 17, 2014. After submitting the case 

on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by 

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment 

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms 

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered February 3, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Lloyd. 
Opinion delivered by Justice Lloyd.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

April 17, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officers of AutoImmune Inc. (the Company)
hereby certify that, as of the date of this statement, the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) and that, to the best of their knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and the results of operations
of the Company.

The purpose of this certification is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This statement is not filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Act or any
other federal or state law or regulation.



|                   |  |  |  |        |  |                                  
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2008 |  |  |  |        |  | /S/ ROBERT C. BISHOP             
|                   |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Robert C. Bishop                 
|                   |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer          
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 13, 2008 |  |  |  |        |  | /S/ DIANE M.
MCCLINTOCK          
|                   |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Diane M. McClintock              
|                   |  |  |  | Title: |  | Director of Finance and Treasurer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Augustin Caban, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Carey, J.), rendered June 30, 1987, convicting defendant after a jury trial of assault in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of from 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The complainant testified that after purchasing crack of poor value from an unidentified seller, he was directed by the seller to defendant to register a complaint. When the complainant went to complain, defendant shot him in the stomach twice. The complainant testified that he knew defendant from having sold drugs for him three years previously. Defendant, testifying on his own behalf, sought to establish that during the subject period of time, he was out of the country visiting Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, and on the date of the crime, had been examining a prospective purchase of property in the Dominican Republic. The People’s rebuttal evidence consisted of a Dominican customs officer, whose testimony sought to establish that immigration stamps in defendant’s passport were forgeries, and that defendant had never been issued the mandatory tourist card.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, and giving due deference to the jury’s findings of credibility *(People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was legally sufficient, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). For the most part, evidence of defendant’s uncharged crimes did not elicit appropriate objection from trial counsel, and the claims are waived for review. Nor is there a reason to review in the interest of justice. Defendant placed identification squarely in issue. Evidence of a prior relationship between defendant and the complainant was probative of identity. *(See, People v Robinson,*68 NY2d 541.) The probative value of this evidence outweighed the potential for undue prejudice *(People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233). Similarly, evidence of contraband recovered from the subject apartment was relevant evidence which explained the altercation between the complainant and defendant. It also was relevant to establish defendant’s connection with this apartment, which at trial he *520denied. The complainant had testified that the shooting occurred outside of the apartment, and defendant, while being processed, had stated that this apartment was his residence. Finally, defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation statements were either unpreserved *(People v Tardbania,*72 NY2d 852), or to the extent they were preserved, were merit-less. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 31, 1997
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,750,995
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,097,401
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,848,396
<PP&E>                                      63,500,454
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,876,941
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,557,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          626,330
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,930,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,557,236
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,396,464
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,003,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   429,063
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CHASE GENERAL CORPORATION CONTAINED IS ITS ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         206,609
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  150,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,516
<INVENTORY>                                    200,157
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               581,194
<PP&E>                                       1,036,457
<DEPRECIATION>                                 818,690
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 798,961
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          101,522
<BONDS>                                        156,606
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,361,440
<COMMON>                                       969,834
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,790,441)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   798,961
<SALES>                                      2,134,920
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,143,176
<CGS>                                        1,677,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  399,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (4,012)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,571
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,917
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,655
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,262
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
An unpublis|

ed order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority: SCR 123

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

REESE ROBERT WALDRON, No. 67095.
Petitioner, :

vs.

THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NYE, APR 1 5 2015
Respondent. Cre TRACIEK LINDEMAN

ERIC GF SUPREME COURT

‘Supreme Court
oF
NEVADA

(0) 1M7A AGB

wy _S. Yr
DEPUTY CLERK,

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner seeks an
order directing the district court to dismiss his case because of an alleged
violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. We have reviewed the
documents submitted in this matter, and without deciding upon the merits
of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise original jurisdiction in
this matter. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

, Saitta
HU. wd. et : J.

Gibbons Pickering

ce: Reese Robert Waldron
Attorney General/Carson City
Nye County Clerk

1S-1132,
May 16, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TRACY HOLLISTER , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00529

- CV V.

MALONEY, MARTIN & MI TCHELL LLP, MIKE MAR TIN, P .C. AND MIKE MARTIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND FRANK W. MITCHEL L , Appellee s

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of APPELLEE S , was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

.
We order APPELLANT to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-1015 Directorate Identifier: 2013-NE-37-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspect tail bearing 

housing 8.0 $ 510.00 $0 $ 510.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

0.0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): Labor hours 

from service bulletin.
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-5134
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARCEL BARNES, a/k/a Larry Kevin Brown, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-52) Submitted: July 19, 2006 Decided: August 1, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcel Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Marcel Barnes appeals the district court’s order granting his 28 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion and reducing his sentence from life in prison to 360 months. We reject Barnes’ claim on appeal that he can raise a challenge to his sentence under United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Moreno , 421 F.3d 1217, 1220-21 (11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1643 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Barnes , No. CR-94-52 (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 2005). 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
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Avenir Award Program for Genetics or Epigenetics of Substance Use Disorders.                    

*Date:*                         February 13-14, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ipolia R. Ramadan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-4471,                         *ramadanir@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 17, 2023.

David W. Freeman, 

Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-25938 Filed 11-22-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P