alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Den Europæiske Unions L 198/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0634 |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | L 198 |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Retsforskrifter | 61. årgang6. august 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0634

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

L 198

Dansk udgave

Retsforskrifter

61. årgang6. august 2018

---

| Indhold | | II   Ikke-lovgivningsmæssige retsakter | Side |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONALE AFTALER |
| | * | Meddelelse om ikrafttrædelse af en protokol om tvistbilæggelse mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Den Libanesiske Republik om fastlæggelse af en tvistbilæggelsesordning for tvister vedrørende handelsbestemmelserne i Euro-Middelhavsaftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og dets medlemsstater på den ene side og Den Libanesiske Republik på den anden side | 1 |

Indhold

II   Ikke-lovgivningsmæssige retsakter

Side

INTERNATIONALE AFTALER

*

Meddelelse om ikrafttrædelse af en protokol om tvistbilæggelse mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Den Libanesiske Republik om fastlæggelse af en tvistbilæggelsesordning for tvister vedrørende handelsbestemmelserne i Euro-Middelhavsaftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og dets medlemsstater på den ene side og Den Libanesiske Republik på den anden side

1

| DA | De akter, hvis titel er trykt med magre typer, er løbende retsakter inden for rammerne af landbrugspolitikken og har normalt en begrænset gyldighedsperiode.
  Titlen på alle øvrige akter er trykt med fede typer efter en asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

DA

De akter, hvis titel er trykt med magre typer, er løbende retsakter inden for rammerne af landbrugspolitikken og har normalt en begrænset gyldighedsperiode.

Titlen på alle øvrige akter er trykt med fede typer efter en asterisk.

---

II Ikke-lovgivningsmæssige retsakter

INTERNATIONALE AFTALER

| 6.8.2018 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | L 198/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2018

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

L 198/1

---

Meddelelse om ikrafttrædelse af en protokol om tvistbilæggelse mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Den Libanesiske Republik om fastlæggelse af en tvistbilæggelsesordning for tvister vedrørende handelsbestemmelserne i Euro-Middelhavsaftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og dets medlemsstater på den ene side og Den Libanesiske Republik på den anden side

Protokollen om tvistbilæggelse mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Den Libanesiske Republik om fastlæggelse af en tvistbilæggelsesordning for tvister vedrørende handelsbestemmelserne i Euro-Middelhavsaftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og dets medlemsstater på den ene side og Den Libanesiske Republik på den anden side, undertegnet den 11. november 2010 i Bruxelles, træder i henhold til dennes artikel 23 i kraft den 1. september 2018.

---
Exhibit 10-30
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND RICHARD A. YOUNG
 WHEREAS Company Employee Employment Agreement
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW THEREFORE
 1.
    
    Section 3.3(a) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
 (a)
    
    In any given calendar year, Executive shall not sell or
otherwise dispose of a number of shares of common stock of the Company
acquired under Incentive Stock Awards in excess of the greater of:
 (i)
    
    40,000 shares (as adjusted to reflect any stock
dividend, stock split or reverse stock split, of the Class A
common stock of the Company); or(ii)
    
    the product of (A) ten percent (10%) times (B)
the sum of (I) the number of shares of common stock of the
Company to which Executive holds title, determined as of the
date immediately before the proposed sale or disposition date,
that were issued pursuant to an Incentive Stock Award, plus
(II) seventy percent (70%) of the number of shares of common
stock of the Company for which Incentive Stock Awards are
exercisable determined as of the date immediately before the
proposed sale or disposition date.
 2.
    
    Section 3.3(b) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
 (b)
    
    In any given calendar quarter, Executive shall not sell or
otherwise dispose of a number of shares of common stock of the Company
acquired under Incentive Stock Awards in excess of the greater of:




---



##### 



(i)
    
    10,000 shares (as adjusted to reflect any stock
dividend, stock split or reverse stock split, of the Class A
common stock of the Company); or(ii)
    
    the product of (A) two and one-half percent
(2.5%) times (B) the sum of (I) the number of shares of common
stock of the Company to which Executive holds title, determined
as of the date immediately before the proposed sale or
disposition date, that were issued pursuant to an Incentive
Stock Award, plus (II) seventy percent (70%) of the number of
shares of common stock of the Company for which Incentive Stock
Awards are exercisable determined as of the date immediately
before the proposed sale or disposition date.
 3.
    
    Section 5.1.2 is amended by changing 30 days to be 90 days where used therein.4.
    
    Section 5.2.2 is amended by changing 30 days to be 90 days where used therein.5.
    
    In all other respects, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 WITNESS/ATTEST
    
    
    
    TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC./s/ Bruce A. White
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Maurice B. ToseTitle:
    
    President, Chairman & CEODate:
    
    05/03/2010EMPLOYEE/s/ Bruce A. White
    
    
    
    /s/ Richard A. YoungDate:
    
    05/03/2010
EXHIBIT 32.2  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the filing of the Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) by Gold Horse International, Inc. (the Registrant), I, Adam Wasserman, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:  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 conditions and results of operations of Registrant.
  /s/ Adam Wasserman Name: Adam Wasserman Title: Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer  Dated: May 23, 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.
#### Orange Dan LINSEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27641.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 1, 1955.

John Cutler, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Upon a trial before the court, no jury being demanded, appellant was convicted for carrying a pistol and was assessed a fine of $125.

The evidence, viewed from the standpoint of the State, shows that shortly after midnight appellant was standing on the sidewalk in front of a “beer joint” where a disturbance was in progress, or had been. He had a loaded pistol in his hand, and was heard to say “let him come on out here for I got my 'heater with me.”

The pistol was taken from him by the witness Thompson, who was “on a job for the FBI”.

Appellant testified that he had loaned the pistol to Howard Sanders and had considered selling it to him, but changed his mind and arranged to meet' Sanders at the “beer joint” or tavern, get his pistol and take it home.

Sanders corroborated appellant’s testimony to the effect that he had delivered the pistol to appellant in the men’s room and he and appellant were leaving and'were outside the beer joint when the pistol was taken from, appellant’s pocket by Officer Thompson.

If we understand appellant’s contention it is that the testimony shows without dispute that he was laivfully carrying the pistol because he was returning it to his home, after receiving it from Sanders, by the nearest practical route. He urges that it is not material that the trial court may have found from the disputed evidence that he *863had the pistol in his hand and made the statement attributed to him by the State witnesses.

Assuming that the evidence required a finding that appellant had just received the pistol from Sanders, there is nothing upon which the court cotild base a finding that he was carrying it directly to his home, other than appellant’s testimony to the effect that such was his intention.

We know of no law which would require the court or a jury to accept as true the testimony of an accused as to his purpose and intention in carrying a pistol.

The decisions are to the contrary. See Allen v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 666, 259 S.W. 2d 225; Hutspeth v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 188, 254 S.W.2d 130.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and no other question is raised.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1: Sarbanes-Oxley Certification



Re:
C-BASS Mortgage Asset-Backed Certificates Certificates, Series 2005-CB1


I, Larry B. Litton, Jr. certify that:


l.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution and servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Bond Securitization, L.L.C. (the "Registrant");

2.
Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.
Based on my knowledge, the distribution information, and the servicing
information required to be provided to the Trustee by the Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, is included in these reports;

4.
I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Servicer under the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement and based upon the review required under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and except as disclosed in the report, the Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and

5.
I have disclosed to the Registrant's certified public accountants all significant
deficiencies relating to the Servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards in accordance with a review conducted in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar standard as set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me
by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National Association.

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated January 1, 2005 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), among the Registrant as depositor, Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC, as seller, Litton Loan Servicing LP, as servicer and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee.
LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP
Date:  3/30/2006



By:  /s/ Larry B. Litton, Jr.




Name:  Larry B. Litton, Jr.






Title:    President
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 41 (Thursday, February 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 14902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04365]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-24-009]

Sunshine Act Meetings

Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: March 7, 2024 at 11 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Commission vote on Inv. Nos. 701-TA-590 and 731-TA-1397 (Review) 
(Sodium Gluconate, Gluconic Acid, and Derivative Products from China). 
The Commission currently is scheduled to complete and file its 
determinations and views of the Commission on March 15, 2024.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory 
Hearings and Information Officer, 202-205-2000.
    The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, 
subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 
may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: February 27, 2024.
Sharon Bellamy,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-04365 Filed 2-27-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23

–0272 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MONTANA and PAUL FREDERICK HENKE, M.D., on behalf of themselves and their patients, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. STATE OF MONTANA and AUSTIN KNUDSEN, Attorney General of the State of Montana, in his official capacity, and his agents and successors, Defendants and Appellants. **ORDER**

**__________________________________________________________________** Upon consideration of Ap pellants’ Mo tion for a 3 0 - day E xtension of T ime, and good cause appearing therefore, Appellants are granted an extension of time to and including January 15, 2024 , within whi ch t o prepare, serve, and file its Reply Brief . No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Jim Rice Justice, Montana Supreme Court December 5 2023

12/05/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0272
#### NEAL v. STATE.

No. 26590.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 11, 1953.

William H. Scott, Criminal Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin,' for the State. . .. ■

MORRISON, Judge,

The offense is the unlawful possession of policy paraphernalia;’ the piinishment-,-30 days in jail and a fine of $200.

*844The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 15



Acknowledgement of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in



(i)

Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 2-73803), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation Employee Savings and Retirement Plan,



(ii)

Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-50841) and Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-59602), each of which relate to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation Associates Investment Plan for Residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,



(iii)

Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-59101), which relates to the Voluntary Investment Plan of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation (Crystal Brands Division),



(iv)

Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 2-72959), Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 to Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 2-64564) and Post-Effective Amendment No. 13 to Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 2-47910), each of which relate to the 1973 Employees Stock Option Plan of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation,



(v)

Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-38698), Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-24057) and Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-60793), each of which relate to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 1987 Stock Option Plan,



(vi)

Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-29765), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan,



(vii)

Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-41068), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 2000 Stock Option Plan,



(viii)

Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-109000), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 2003 Stock Option Plan, and



(ix)

Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-125694), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation Associates Investment Plan for Salaried Associates, Associates Investment Plan for Hourly Associates and Associates Investment Plan for Residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico



of our report dated August 23, 2006 with respect to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation that are included in its Form 10-Q for the thirteen week period ended July 30, 2006.



Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, our report is not a part of the registration statements or post-effective amendments prepared or certified within the meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.



ERNST & YOUNG LLP



New York, New York

September 8, 2006
SCWC

- 17

- 0000145

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

________________________________________________________________

GILBERT V. MALABE and DAISY D. MALABE

, Petitioners /Plaintiff s

- Appellants

,

vs.

ASSOCIATION OF APART MENT OWNERS OF EXECUTIVE CENTRE

,

by and through its Board of Directors,

Respondent / Defendant

- Appellee

.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 17

- 0000145 ; CIVIL NO. 16

- 1

- 2256 )

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs

- Appellants Gilbert V. Malabe

and Daisy D. Malabe ’s application for writ of certiorari filed

on March 29 , 2019 , is here by accepted

.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be

heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai ʻ i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move

for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, May 9 , 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-17-0000145

09-MAY-2019

08:06 AM
**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**
* 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. 08-50278

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICKY PORTILLO AGUILAR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:99-CR-284-3

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ricky Portillo Aguilar pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess 100 grams

or more of heroin within 1,000 feet of a school and possession with intent to

distribute more than 100 grams of heroin. He was sentenced to 84 months in

prison.

Aguilar argues that the district court clearly erred in reducing his base

offense level by two levels for his minor participation in the offense rather than

by three- or four-levels for his minimal or less than minor participation in the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50278

2

offense. The advisory Sentencing Guidelines provide for a reduction in the base

offense level of a “minor” or a “minimal” participant and a participant who falls

between a “minor” and “minimal” participant. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. To merit a

reduction under § 3B1.2, the defendant must have been “substantially less

culpable” than the average participant. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). The role of a

defendantin the offense is a factual determination that we review for clear error.

United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2005).

Aguilar’s suggestion that he was entitled to a three- or four-level

adjustment because he was involved in only one drug delivery is faulty. This

court has upheld the denial of minimal role status where the defendant was

recruited as a courier for a single shipment of a large quantity of drugs. See

United States v. Gallegos, 868 F.2d 711, 713 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v.

Rojas, 868 F.2d 1409, 1410 (5th Cir. 1989). Aguilar was apprehended with 378.3

grams of heroin. Although he was involved in a purportedly single instance of

drug trafficking, the relatively large quantity of heroin represents a serious

crime “with serious consequences for the public.” Gallegos, 868 F.2d at 713; see

also United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1989). Moreover,

Aguilar provided no evidence, apart from his own self-serving statements,

showing that he was substantially less culpable than other participants. The

district court did not clearly err in denying him a more generous role

adjustment.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Artrece Dean, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), rendered November 20, 1987, convicting her of attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

*481Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the indictment should have been dismissed because of the prosecution’s failure to submit her postarrest statement, in which she claimed that she shot the complainant in self-defense, to the Grand Jury. We disagree. The defendant’s postarrest statement did not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule and therefore need not have been submitted to the Grand Jury *(see generally, People v Smalls,*111 AD2d 38; *cf., People v Valles,*62 NY2d 36).

The defendant’s additional contention that the lineup identification was impermissibly suggestive because each of the "fillers” was wearing the same type of shoes, is also meritless. Indeed, an inspection of a photograph of the lineup reveals that a table obscured the feet and lower legs of each lineup participant and that the shoes of the participants were therefore not visible to an observer.

The defendant’s remaining arguments are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 798-799; *People v Simmons,*158 AD2d 727; *People v Roopchand,*107 AD2d 35, *affd*65 NY2d 87; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.