alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 86A/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.086.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 86A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5523 March 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.086.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 86A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5523 March 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Medicines Agency |
| 2012/C 086A/01 | Recruitment to the European Medicines Agency (London) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Medicines Agency

2012/C 086A/01

Recruitment to the European Medicines Agency (London)

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 8 | (DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | |
| 17 | (LT) |
| 20 | (EN) |
| 22 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (FR) |
| 31 | (ES) |
| 37 | |
| 44 | |
| 46 | |
| 53 | |
| 55 | |
| 59 | |
| 69 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 70 | (EL) |
| 71 | (ES) |
| 74 | (HU) |
| 75 | (NL) |
| 76 | |
| 77 | (RO) |
| 84 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 86 | |

8

(DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL)

10

17

(LT)

20

(EN)

22

(DE/EN/FR)

27

30

(FR)

31

(ES)

37

44

46

53

55

59

69

(DE/EN/FR)

70

(EL)

71

(ES)

74

(HU)

75

(NL)

76

77

(RO)

84

(DE/EN/FR)

86

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE02900

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1505 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1505

To require a 25-percent reduction in appropriations for the legislative 
                       branch of the Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 1993

  Mr. Dickey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require a 25-percent reduction in appropriations for the legislative 
                       branch of the Government.

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF 25 PERCENT IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE 
              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.

    Notwithstanding any other law, or any rule or other authority, the 
total of appropriations for the legislative branch of the Government 
for fiscal year 1994 may not exceed 75 percent of the total of 
appropriations for the legislative branch of the Government for fiscal 
year 1993.

SEC. 2. PRIORITY TO BE GIVEN TO ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE SERVICES.

    In carrying out section 1, the Congress shall give first 
consideration to reductions in appropriations that may be achieved by 
means of elimination of duplicative services in congressional 
operations, with particular emphasis on consolidation of all legal 
services of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Library 
of Congress.

                                 <all>
```
#### CARNES v. STATE.

No. 20641.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 27, 1940.

For former opinion, see 134 S.W.2d 1052.

• W. C. Baker and Jim W. Weatherby, both of Kerrville, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant files a motion in this court requesting that we correct our mandate heretofore issued on January 12, 1940, his complaint being directed at the following italicized phrase: “It is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the judgment be in all things affirmed, and that the appellant *and his sureties on recognizance*pay all costs in the court below, and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

In the Revised Civil Statutes 1895, Art. 1063, it was provided that: “In every * * case of a less grade than felony in which an appeal is taken to the court of criminal appeals, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed against the defendant, all fees due the clerk of said court in said case shall be adjudged against the defendant and his sureties on his recognizance,” etc.

Construing such statute, Judge Henderson held in Benson v. State, 39 Tex.Cr.R. 56, 44 S.W. 167, and Arbuthnot v. State, 38 Tex.Cr.R. 509, 34 S.W. 269, 43 S.W. 1024, that payment of the costs in this court was a portion of the obligation of the sure^ ties on a recognizance in such a misdemeanor case. This statute has been repealed, and will not be found in the 1925 revision of our statutes. . The recognizance in this case merely obligates the sureties to see that appellant shall appear before the court from day to day and from term to term of the same, and not depart therefrom without leave of the court in order to abide the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas.

Without the aid of the repealed statute, we do not think we have the power, under this recognizance, to require the sureties to pay the costs in the lower court, nor does the law thus require, but must leave that matter to the proper officers in such court •to enforce the same against the appellant.

The motion is therefore granted, and the clerk is directed to withdraw the mandate .of date January 12, 1940, and to issue a further one as above set forth, leaving out, however, the words “and his sureties on recognizance.”
----

----

----

| ☒ | ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ☐ | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

| Maryland                                                      |   | 47-4156046                          |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
| (State or Other Jurisdiction ofIncorporation or Organization) |   | (I.R.S. EmployerIdentification No.) |
|                                                          |   |                                |
| 3090 Bristol Street, Suite 550Costa Mesa, CA                  |   | 92626                               |
| (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                      |   | (Zip Code)                          |

----

| Title of Each Class |   | Trading Symbol(s) |   | Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
| None                |   | None              |   | None                                      |

----

| Large accelerated filer | ☐ | Accelerated filer         | ☐ |
|-------------------------|---------|---------------------------|---------|
| Non-accelerated filer   | ☒ | Smaller reporting company | ☒ |
|                    |    | Emerging growth company   | ☒ |

----

----

----

| ITEM 15. | EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES |
|----------|--------------------------------------------|
| (b) | Exhibits: |
|-----|-----------|
| Exhibit | Description                                                                                        |
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 31.1    | Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
| 31.2    | Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |

----

|   | RW HOLDINGS NNN REIT, INC. |
|--------|----------------------------|
|   |                       |   |
|   | By:                        | /s/ AARON S. HALFACRE |
|   |                       | Aaron S. Halfacre |
|   |                       | Chief Executive Officer, President and Director |
|   |                       | (principal executive officer) |

----
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3022014-MAR-201107:51 AM
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30351]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-228-004]


Transwestern Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

November 22, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 15, 2000, Transwestern Pipeline 
Company (Transwestern) tendered for filing to become part of 
Transwestern's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the 
following tariff sheets, proposed to become effective on November 15, 
2000:

Second Revised Sheet No. 5B.05
Original Sheet No. 5B.07

    Transwestern states that the above sheets are being filed to 
implement a specific negotiated rate transaction in accordance with the 
Commission's Policy Statement on Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-
Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines.
    Transwestern further states that copies of the filing have been 
mailed to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 88 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30351 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 21





WORLDWIDE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES





PARENTS AND SUBSIDIARIES





James A. Collins, Chairman Emeritus and a Director, owned of record and beneficially, at June 30, 2002, 3,854,911 shares of the
Companys common stock, representing approximately 13.4 percent of the Companys total shares outstanding and may be considered a parent of the Company as such term is defined by the rules and regulations of the Securities and
Exchange commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.





Set forth below is a list of all of the
Companys subsidiaries as of June 30, 2002:





Name of Subsidiary

Jurisdiction of IncorporationCollins Food Group Pty, Ltd.

AustraliaCFI Insurers, Ltd.

BermudaCollins Finance and Management Pty, Ltd.

AustraliaCollins Foods Australia Pty, Ltd.

AustraliaCollins Foods International, Pty, Ltd.

NevadaCollins International, Inc.

DelawareCollins Properties, Inc.

DelawareCollins Property Development Pty, Ltd.

AustraliaCurlys of Springfield, P.A., Inc.

PennsylvaniaAffiliated Restaurant Corp.

CaliforniaFurnace Concepts Australia Corp.

NevadaFurnace Concepts International, Inc.

NevadaCollins Restaurants Queensland Pty, Ltd.

AustraliaJosephinas, Inc.

CaliforniaRestaurant Concepts International, Inc.

NevadaRestaurant Concepts of Australia Pty, Ltd.

NevadaScotts & Sizzler Ltd.

CanadaSizzler Australia Pty, Ltd.

AustraliaSizzler Family Steak Houses, Inc.

NevadaSizzler Franchise Development, Ltd.

BermudaSizzler Holdings of Canada, Inc.

CanadaSizzler International Marks, Inc.

DelawareSizzler New Zealand Limited

NevadaSizzler of N.Y., Inc.

New YorkSizzler Restaurants Group Pty, Ltd.

AustraliaSizzler Restaurant Services, Inc.

NevadaSizzler South Pacific Pty, Ltd.

NevadaSizzler Southeast Asia, Inc.

NevadaSizzler Steak Seafood Salad (S) Pte. Ltd.

SingaporeSizzler USA Franchise, Inc.

DelawareSizzler USA Real Property, Inc.

DelawareSizzler USA Restaurants, Inc.

DelawareSizzler USA, Inc.

DelawareFFPE, LLC

DelawareCollins Restaurants Management Pty, Ltd.

AustraliaCollins Restaurants NSW Pty, Ltd.

AustraliaSizzler Asia Holdings, Inc.

Delaware
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William F. Oakes, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant, who is mildly mentally retarded, was convicted of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) for stabbing Edward Goulding to death in the Town of Cape Vincent sometime between 10:00 p.m. on Friday, February 24, *9851984 and 9:10 a.m. the following morning. Defendant’s estranged wife and their daughter had gone to live with Goulding several months before that incident. The People’s theory was that defendant killed Goulding because Goulding caused defendant’s separation from his wife.

Upon the exercise of our factual review powers (CPL 470.15 [1]), we conclude that the People failed to meet their burden of disproving defendant’s alibi defense beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Victor,*62 NY2d 374, 377-378; *People v Salva,*156 AD2d 953). The proof at trial established that Edward Goulding was stabbed to death in his home sometime between the hours set forth above as he lay sleeping. There is no evidence linking defendant to the murder other than his inculpatory admissions and "confession” to the police.

Defendant presented a number of disinterested alibi witnesses who testified that defendant’s landlady locked him in his apartment in Watertown from 8:00 p.m. on Friday evening February 24, 1984 until 5:45 a.m. the following morning, that his car was hemmed in between a camper and another car in his driveway, that he was at a diner in Chaumont between 6:00 a.m. and 6:45 a.m. on Saturday morning and then at 6:50 a.m. went to a Catholic Church, where he remained working all day. Other than establishing that defendant had a motive to kill Goulding, who he blamed for the breakup of his marriage, and the suspect admissions and confession made by defendant to the police, there is absolutely no evidence linking defendant to the commission of this murder. On the other hand, defendant’s alibi witnesses were both disinterested and credible and fully accounted for defendant’s presence at the time that the murder allegedly occurred.

The mere possibility that defendant could have managed to get out of the locked house, gone from Watertown to Cape Vincent without benefit of an automobile, and returned without waking his landlady or her granddaughter is, in our view, insufficient to disprove defendant’s alibi defense beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Salva, supra).*(Appeal from judgment of Jefferson County Court, Aylward, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

COLIN NATHANSON,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 13

- 56410

D.C. Nos. 8:12

- cv

- 01978

- CJC

8:05

- cr

- 00301

- CJC

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 7, 2014

Pasadena, California

Before: TALLMAN, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Colin Nathanson appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his 324

- month sentence for mail fraud. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(d), and we affirm.

Nathanson has not shown “that counsel’s representation fell below an

objective standard of reasonableness.” See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3. 

# FILED

OCTOBER 30 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

668, 687

- 88 (1984). Appellate counsel are not required to raise every nonfrivolous

claim in a merits brief

, and “‘[g]enerally, only when ignored issues are clearly

stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance of counsel

be overcome.’” Smith v. Robbins , 528 U.S. 259, 288 (2000) (quoting Gray v.

Greer , 800 F.2d 644, 646 (7th Cir. 1986)) . I t was not clear that a due process claim

based on Bearden v. Georgia , 461 U.S. 660 (1983), would have been stronger than

the claims Nathanson’s counsel actually raised.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clifton Seger, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of criminally negligent homicide, leaving the scene of a fatal accident, reckless driving and speeding. The convictions stem from defendant’s operation of a vehicle that struck and killed James Riley, a bicyclist, on Lockport Road shortly after midnight on July 13, 1988. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932), we find sufficient proof that, at the time of the event, defendant was engaged in criminally culpable risk-creating conduct that created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death *(see,*Penal Law § 15.05 [4]). The trial testimony established that defendant had been driving at an excessive rate of speed, that he swerved in and out of the driving lane and that he failed to observe the bicyclist, who was lawfully traveling on the shoulder of the road *(cf., People v Boutin,*75 NY2d 692).

The trial court erred, however, by permitting the People to present, on their direct case, evidence of the defendant’s consumption of alcoholic beverages in the months preceding the date of the alleged crimes. This evidence was wholly irrelevant and inadmissible. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant had testified that he had not consumed any alcoholic beverages for four years, testimony of other witnesses concerning his prior consumption would have been inadmissible (Richardson, Evidence § 491 [Prince 10th ed]). The error is, however, susceptible to harmless error analysis. There is overwhelming proof of guilt, and we find no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the error *(People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230).

We have considered the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, DiFlorio, J.—criminally negligent homicide.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Lawton, JJ.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

THOMAS E. BONNING, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2414

[May 19, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Rosemarie Scher, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-CF001313-AXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Cynthia L. Anderson, 

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay A. Warner, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 10.19(b)



                 AMENDMENT TO THE BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.

                           1995 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


         The second  sentence of Paragraph  5(a) of the  Burlington  Industries,
Inc. 1995 Equity  Incentive Plan is hereby amended,  effective as of November 1,
1996, to read in its entirety as follows:

                           "Each of the  members of the  Committee  shall at all
                           times  during  service  as a member of the  Committee
                           qualify with  respect to the Plan as a  "Non-Employee
                           Director"  within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 under the
                           Exchange Act and as an "outside  director" within the
                           meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code."
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

November 12, 2015

Hon. Danice L. Obregon

Attorney at Law

802 N. Caranchua, Suite 2100

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Mr. Frankie Wayne Nealy

#1714921

Ellis Unit

1697 FM 980

Huntsville, TX 77343

Re: Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00689

- CV

Tr.Ct.No

. S

- 12

- 5439FL

- A

Style: Frankie Wayne Nealy v. Robin Michelle Nealy

Appellant ’s motion for extension of time to file brief in the above cause was this

day GRANTED by this Court. The time has been e xtended to Monday, December 14,

2015

.

Ve ry truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM GEOSCIENCE CORPORATION FORM 10Q THIRD QUARTER 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             804
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,381
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     61,280
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,203
<PP&E>                                          29,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,294
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   151,340
<SALES>                                         91,178
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,178
<CGS>                                           53,863
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,291
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (94)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,940
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,081
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,859
<DISCONTINUED>                                   4,864
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,723
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
        

</TABLE>