alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

(2004/C 78 E/0242)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3201/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Search at the ‘Il Giornale’ head office in Rome: violation of freedom of the press in Italy

On Friday 17 October 2003, the head office of the leading Italian daily newspaper ‘Il Giornale’, which is investigating the purchase of Telekom Serbia by Telecom Italia, was searched by order of the Court of Perugia. At the end of this search, which was carried out by the police and lasted a good 13 hours, a large quantity of material belonging to the journalist Gian Marco Chiocci was confiscated. It appears that the only crime he is alleged to have committed is that of defaming a Rome judge in the press.

Does the Commission not consider the decisions taken to represent a blatant violation of the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression?

Does it not feel that these decisions violate the recommendations made by the Council of Ministers of the EU to the Member States on 8 March 2003, according to which interception, surveillance, searches and confiscation should not be used to circumvent the right of journalists not to reveal their sources?

Does it not consider the decisions by the Court of Perugia to run contrary to the renowned Goodwin ruling handed down by the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which gave legal substance to journalists' right to the professional secret.

Does it not consider the decisions by the Court of Perugia also to run contrary to ruling No 33400/96 of the Strasbourg court, which deems searches conducted with the intention of discovering journalists' sources to be an outright violation of the freedom of expression?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

The search carried out at the head office of ‘Il Giornale’ by order of the Perugia public prosecutor's office is the sole responsibility of the national authorities responsible for organising the justice system in Italy. Given that Community law is not at issue here, the Commission takes the view that it is not in a position to answer the questions raised by the Honourable Member.

It should be noted that anybody who considers that his fundamental rights have been infringed may take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights once all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         158,438
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  242,914
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,355
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               768,876
<PP&E>                                       1,427,712
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,173,767
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,724,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,043,886
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       106,180
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,546,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,724,220
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               929,123
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  687,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               589,489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (360,606)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (360,606)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (360,606)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)


</TABLE>
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 161

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to restrict

annual deficits by limiting the public debt of the United States and

requiring a favorable vote of the people on any law to exceed such

limit.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 23, 1993

Mr. PICKETT introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to restrict annual deficits by limiting the public

debt of the United States and requiring a favorable

vote of the people on any law to exceed such limit.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
2

•HJ 161 IH

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission

3 for ratification:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE —

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. The public debt of the United States

6 shall not in any fiscal year increase by more than one per7 cent of the amount of the public debt outstanding at the

8 beginning of such year unless authorized by a law ap9 proved by a majority of the Members elected to each the

10 Senate and the House of Representatives, which law shall

11 not take effect until it shall have been submitted to the

12 people at an election and a majority of those voting on

13 the question shall have approved such law.

14 ‘‘SECTION 2. Section 1 shall not apply to public debt

15 contracted—

16 ‘‘(1) to repel invasion of the United States; or

17 ‘‘(2) to defend the United States in time of

18 war; or

19 ‘‘(3) to support the Armed Forces of the United

20 States in time of war; or

21 ‘‘(4) to redeem a previous debt obligation of the

22 United States.

23 ‘‘SECTION 3. This article shall take effect beginning

24 with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratifica25 tion.’’.
3

•HJ 161 IH

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JEROME L. GRIMES, §

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-1260-B (BT) 

§

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA,

 Defendant.

§

§

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated August

2, 2022, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct,

and they are accepted as the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge are accepted. 

SO ORDERED this 16 day of August, 2022. th

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 3:22-cv-01260-B-BT Document 11 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 47
Order entered June 25, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01329-CV

ALBERT LUTTERODT, Appellant

V.

EMILY LANE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-12648-G

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal, which was abated to allow the trial court an opportunity to 

conduct a hearing and make certain findings regarding payment of court reporter Vielica 

Dobbins’s fees for the record of the exhibits. Pursuant to our abatement order, the trial court 

made the following relevant findings:

•The amount of Ms. Dobbins’s fees is $2,000.00.

•Ms. Dobbins’s agreed to accept payment of her fee in installments.

•To date, $1,000.00 has been paid for the record of the exhibits.

•Ms. Dobbins and [appellant’s counsel] agreed . . . that $1,000.00 is owed and 

[appellant] would pay $500.00 on June 15, 2015 and $500 on July 15, 2015.
We ADOPT these findings and ORDER Ms. Dobbins to file, no later than July 24, 2015, 

either (1) the record of the exhibits or (2) written verification that her fee has not been paid in 

full and the amount still owed.

Because the supplemental clerk’s record containing the requested findings has been filed, 

we DENY as moot Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre’s June 22, 2015 request for 

extension of time to file the supplemental clerk’s record. 

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Dobbins and the 

parties.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 160 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 160

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

                To correct the enrollment of H.R. 3123.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 160

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3123, to improve the electric 
and telephone loan programs carried out under the Rural Electrification 
Act of 1936, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House shall make 
the following correction:
            On page 4, line 16, of the House engrossed bill, strike 
        ``urban'' and insert ``urbanized''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Eugene Douglas Hazelton, Appellant.

County Court, St. Lawrence County,

November 9, 1957.

*362
      *Eric C. Gordon*for appellant.

*Charles E. Bowers, District Attorney,*for respondent.

Donald C. Sanford, J.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction in a Court of Special Sessions of the Town of Waddington, New York. After several adjournments, a trial was had before Justice of the Peace Albert Wright of said town on the 8th day of October, 1956; the defendant was found guilty of violation of subdivision 10 of section 14 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law for operating a motor vehicle on the River Road in the town of Waddington on August 27, 1956 with an alleged weight in excess of the total weight allowed under that section. Defendant was fined the sum of $250 as a second offender and said fine was paid.

The questions to be decided in this appeal are as follows, to wit:

First: Was the evidence presented by the People sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Second: If guilty, was the fine imposed excessive?

In deciding the second question first, this court holds that the fine imposed on this defendant was not excessive, unreasonable or unconstitutional.

In deciding the first question the testimony of New York State troopers Fleming, Buell and Kaminski and the testimony of Mr. Vernon F. Garrett, an inspector of weights and measures in the Department of Agriculture and Markets of the State of New York, the only evidence presented was carefully considered.

The problem presented is the validity of a conviction where there is either failure or insufficiency of legal proof of the accuracy of the scales employed herein.

The testimony shows that there was a lapse of about three months since the “ Load-O-Meters ” had been officially tested; further proof of the accuracy of the scales was attempted to be established by presenting in' evidence certificates of the State Department of Agriculture and Markets stating that the scales were approved. This certificate should not have been admitted in evidence. It is further shown that the severe, rough usage of the scales could have affected their accuracy; the uneven roadbed could also have affected their accuracy; the question of whether the clutch and brakes were released could have affected *363the scales’ accuracy; the variations testified to could affect the scales to the point where there would be no overloading. There can be no conviction where there has been a failure to establish the accuracy of the “ Load-0 Meters ” to the degree required by law to establish guilt in a criminal proceeding. There is clearly a failure of proof beyond a reasonable doubt herein. Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of conviction herein be and hereby is reversed and the fine ordered be remitted.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Anthony Sfarra, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-C28 (the"Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesrequired to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 ofRegulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Anymaterial instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor,CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant, ComputershareTrust Company, National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for theCertificate Administrator on and after November 1, 2021, ComputershareTrust Company, National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for theCustodian on and after November 1, 2021, Midland Loan Services, a Divisionof PNC Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer for the Commerce Point I& II Mortgage Loan, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, as Special Servicer for the Commerce Point I & II MortgageLoan, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for the Commerce Point I& II Mortgage Loan, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Custodian forthe Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan, and Situs Holdings, LLC, asOperating Advisor for the Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated:March 11,2022

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

Anthony Sfarra

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 190 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res. 190
                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
  the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three


                            Joint Resolution

  
 
  Designating July 17 through July 23, 1993, as ``National Veterans 
Golden Age

                              Games Week''.

Whereas from July 17, 1993, through July 23, 1993, the Department of 
  Veterans Affairs Medical Center at Mountain Home, Tennessee, will host 
  the seventh annual Veterans Golden Age Games;
Whereas the games are a national multi-event sports and recreational 
  competition for veterans, age 55 and over, who are currently receiving 
  medical care from the Department of Veterans Affairs;
Whereas sports and recreation are integral components in the 
  rehabilitative medicine programs offered at Veterans Administration 
  hospitals, and help improve the health and quality of life for older 
  veterans;
Whereas veteran athletes from across the United States will compete in 
  events and competitions at the games;
Whereas the National Veterans Golden Age Games Program serves as a 
  showcase for the prevention and therapeutic medical value that sports 
  and recreation provide in the lives of all older Americans; and
Whereas the games provide further recognition of the valiant service 
  given to the Nation by its veterans: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That July 17 through July 23, 
1993, is designated as ``National Veterans Golden Age Games Week'', and 
the President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation 
calling upon the people of the United States to observe such week with 
appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.







                                Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                             Vice President of the United States and    
                                                President of the Senate.`
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6632

JASON M. GARRISON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MR. POWELL, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-00-69-2)

Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 4, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason M. Garrison, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jason M. Garrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See Garrison v. Powell, No. CA-00-69-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12,

2000). 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.

DISMISSED
Case 5:22-cr-00040-H-BQ Document 62 Filed 09/20/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 150
Case 5:22-cr-00040-H-BQ Document 62 Filed 09/20/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 151
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66802-66803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28527]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

[Delegation Order No. 264]


Delegation of Authority

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Delegation of authority.

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

SUMMARY: Authority to Offer and Accept Settlement Offers and to Execute 
Closing Agreements Made under the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit Initiative.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Wheeler, Health and Welfare 
Branch, Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax-Exempt 
and Government Entities), CC:TEGE:EB:HW, Room 5203, 1111 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, (202) 622-6060 (not a toll-free 
call).

Delegation of Authority

[Order No.: 264]

    Effective Date: September 15, 2000.

Authority To Offer and Accept Settlement Offers and To Execute Closing 
Agreements Made Under the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit Initiative

    Authority: In cases under their jurisdiction, to accept or make 
settlement offers and to execute closing agreements to effect such 
settlement offers, regardless of liability sought to be compromised, 
made under

[[Page 66803]]

Announcement 2000-58, subject to the prior written review and approval 
by the Retail Industry Technical Advisor (or his or her designee).
    Delegated to: Examination Branch Chiefs in the District offices and 
Territory Managers in Large and Mid-Sized Business and Small Business/
Self-Employed divisions.
    Redelegation: This authority may not be redelegated.
    Sources of Authority: Treasury Order Nos. 150-07, 150-09, and 150-
10 and the authority contained in IRC 7121 to offer and accept written 
settlement offers and execute closing agreements, relating to federal 
tax matters that are the subject of Announcement 2000-58, Targeted Jobs 
Tax Credit Settlement Initiative, 2000-30 I.R.B. 135 (July 24, 2000).
    Ratification: To the extent that authority previously exercised 
consistent with this Order may require ratification, it is hereby 
approved and ratified.

    Dated: October 5, 2000.
Stuart L. Brown,
Chief Counsel.
    Dated: October 16, 2000.
Bob Wenzel,
Deputy Commissioner, Operations.
[FR Doc. 00-28527 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 10.15


 


SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE CONSULTANCY
AGREEMENT


 


This Second Addendum to the Consultancy Agreement (the “Addendum”)
is entered by and between:


 


P.V. NanoCell Ltd., with head
office located at 8 Ha' Masger St., Migdal Ha’Emek 23100, P.O. Box 236, Israel ("PV"); and


 


Dolev Bar-Guy Consulting and Management
Ltd., with head office located at 7 Bialik Street, Zichron Ya'akov, Israel. A company fully owned by Dr. Fernando de la Vega
(the “Company”).


 


	 	WHEREAS	the above parties have executed that certain Consultancy Agreement, effective as of September 9, 2009, and its First Addendum dated April 9, 2013 (together, the “Consultancy Agreement”); and


 


	 	WHEREAS	the parties wish to amend certain provisions of the Consultancy Agreement as further detailed herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree
as follows:


 


	 	1.	The preamble hereto constitutes an integral and binding part of this Addendum. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Addendum shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. All other sections of the Consultancy Agreement, if not amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect.


 


	 	2.	The parties agree to amend and restate Section 2 to Appendix A of the Consultancy Agreement effective as of the date hereof to read as follows:


 


" 2. Remuneration


		 	2..1	the Company shall be entitled to a monthly retainer fee per each full month of Service of a
gross sum of NIS 38,500 plus VAT. Such payment shall be paid by PV according to an invoice issued by the Company to PV at the end
of each calendar month to be paid by PV within 10 days."



 


	3.	This Addendum may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together
will constitute one and the same instrument.




 


And
in Witness, the parties sign this Agreement on this 23rd day of May 2013.


 


		 	
	
        Dolev Bar-Guy Consulting
and Management Ltd.
	 	P.V.
NanoCell Ltd.