alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022214EN.01003801.xml

| 31.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 214/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 214/38

---

Notice for the attention of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(2022/C 214/04)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities designated in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/849 (2), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/840 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities designated in the above-mentioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 16 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 1 March 2023, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered. This request should be sent to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, pursuant to Article 34 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Article 32(4) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, of the list of designated persons and entities.

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 148, 31.5.2022, p. 52.

(3)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 148, 31.5.2022, p. 8.

---
EXHIBIT 31.3

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a),

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Tony L. White, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Applied Biosystems Inc.; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 3, 2008



/s/ Tony L. WhiteChief Executive Officer
# C_2022231EN.01001701.xml

| 15.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/17

---

Decision concerning the assessment of the conditions for resolution in respect of Sberbank Europe AG

(2022/C 231/07)

On 1 March 2022, the Single Resolution Board decided not to place Sberbank Europe AG under resolution. This decision was based on the conclusion that the condition of Article 18(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) was not met. The main elements of this decision are as follows:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 1 March 2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Decision No | SRB/EES/2022/19 |
| Addressee | Finanzmarktaufsicht |
| Institution | Sberbank Europe AG |
| Application of the write-down and conversion of capital instruments power | No |
| Resolution action | No |
| Fund aid | No |

Date of adoption of the decision

1 March 2022

Decision No

SRB/EES/2022/19

Addressee

Finanzmarktaufsicht

Institution

Sberbank Europe AG

Application of the write-down and conversion of capital instruments power

No

Resolution action

No

Fund aid

No

More information about this decision can be found on the SRB’s official Internet: https://www.srb.europa.eu/en/cases

---

(1)  OJ L 225, 30.7.2014, p. 1.

---
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3070 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to permit striped 

bass fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone transit zone 

between Montauk, New York, and Point Judith, Rhode 

Island, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3070 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘EEZ Transit Zone 

3 Clarification and Access Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. RECREATIONAL FISHING IN BLOCK ISLAND SOUND 

5 TRANSIT ZONE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Commerce, in 

7 consultation with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

8 Commission, may issue regulations to permit and regulate 

9 recreational Atlantic striped bass fishing in the Block Is10 land Sound Transit Zone. 

11 (b) BLOCK ISLAND SOUND TRANSIT ZONE DE12 FINED.—In this section the term ‘‘Block Island Sound 

13 transit zone’’ means the area of the exclusive economic 

14 zone north of a line connecting Montauk Light, Montauk 

15 Point, New York, and Block Island Southeast Light, 

16 Block Island, Rhode Island; and west of a line connecting 

17 Point Judith Light, Point Judith, Rhode Island, and 

18 Block Island Southeast Light, Block Island, Rhode Island. 

19 (c) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section or the 

20 regulations issued under this section shall affect— 

21 (1) any permit that— 

22 (A) is issued under any other provision of 

23 law by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

24 Administration, including a permit issued be25 fore the date of the enactment of this Act; and 
3 

•HR 3070 EH

1 (B) authorizes fishing in the Block Island 

2 Sound Transit Zone; or 

3 (2) any activity authorized by such a permit. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 7, 2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3070 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to permit 

purposes. and Point Judith, Rhode Island, and for other Zone transit zone between Montauk, New York, striped bass fishing in the Exclusive Economic
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7500
ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus REBECCA SMITH, Honorable Judge, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-95-799-2) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brock v. Smith , No. CA-95-799-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 20, 1995).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
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Napoleon L. Nazareno,
President and CEO of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, hereby certify, to my knowledge, that our annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, our financial condition and results of operations.

March 26, 2015



/s/    Napoleon L.
NazarenoNAPOLEON L. NAZARENO
President and CEO(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Ex parte ALEXANDER. ALEXANDER v. STATE.

Nos. 17919, 18115.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 8, 1936.

Victor Gleckler, of Austin, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft of chickens; the . punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

No. 17919, Ex parte Will Alexander, and No. 18115, Will Alexander v. The State of Texas, present the same question, and said appeals are therefore consolidated.

Judgment of conviction was entered November 21, 1934, and sentence imposed the following day. On the 23d of November, 1934, within the time allowed by law, appellant filed a motion for a new trial, and on the following day the court entered an order setting aside and vacating the judgment of conviction. The case was again called for trial at the February term, 1935, at which time appellant filed a plea of former jeopardy. The trial court sustained the plea but entered an order which reads in part as follows: “It is further ordered by the court that the order heretofore entered by the court in this cause setting aside the conviction and sentence herein, be and the same is hereby set aside, vacated and annulled, and shall henceforth be held for naught and of no further force and effect. It is further ordered and adjudged by the court that the said defendant Will Alexander be remanded to jail to await transportation by the agent of the state or the sheriff of Travis county and by him conveyed and delivered to the superintendent of the state penitentiary; there to be received and confined in the manner and for the length of time provided for in said former conviction and sentence.”

In Mathis v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 316, 50 S.W. 368, 369, this court held that after granting a motion for a new trial the trial court was without power to again call the case up and set aside the order. We quote from the opinion as follows: “It would appear from these provisions of our Code that the action of the court on the motion ought to bb regarded as final, and that the court would have no authority, after 'he had granted the motion for new trial, aft-erwards, on the same day or on some other day of the term, to again call the case up, set the order aside granting the motion, and overrule it-, and then proceed to sentence the defendant.”

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the quarter ended March 31,
2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership.
 By:
    /s/ Weston M. AndressWeston M. AndressPresident and Chief Financial Officer of
Colonial Properties Trust, the general partner
of Colonial Realty Limited PartnershipMay 9, 2008 46
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,589
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,874
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (490)
<INVENTORY>                                        631
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,253
<PP&E>                                           6,870
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,031)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,673
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,113
<SALES>                                         13,231
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,231
<CGS>                                           12,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,289
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,403<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,461)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,461)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,461)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.45)
<FN>
<F1>EQUITY IN LOSS OF UNCONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARY.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023195EN.01001001.xml

| 2.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/10

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.105128

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 195/09)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 11.4.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.105128 |
| Member State | Finland |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Kasvintuhoojien aiheuttamien laajojen metsävahinkojen ehkäiseminen |
| Legal basis | Laki kasvinterveyden suojelemisesta (702/2003), myöhemmin Kasvinterveyslaki (1110/2019) Laki kasvinterveyslain muuttamisesta (xx/2022, luonnos, liitteenä) |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Forestry |
| Form of aid | |
| Budget | Overall budget: 5 000 000 EUR |
| Intensity | 100,0  % |
| Duration | 5.12.2022 — 31.12.2027 |
| Economic sectors | Forestry and logging |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ruokavirasto |
| PL 100, 00027 Ruokavirasto |

Date of adoption of the decision

11.4.2023

Aid number

SA.105128

Member State

Finland

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Kasvintuhoojien aiheuttamien laajojen metsävahinkojen ehkäiseminen

Legal basis

Laki kasvinterveyden suojelemisesta (702/2003), myöhemmin Kasvinterveyslaki (1110/2019) Laki kasvinterveyslain muuttamisesta (xx/2022, luonnos, liitteenä)

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Forestry

Form of aid

Budget

Overall budget: 5 000 000 EUR

Intensity

100,0  %

Duration

5.12.2022 — 31.12.2027

Economic sectors

Forestry and logging

Name and address of the granting authority

Ruokavirasto

PL 100, 00027 Ruokavirasto

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-88,438-03 & WR-88,438-05

EX PARTE WENDELL WARD, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. NOS. W0471691A & W0471691C IN THE 195 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Applicant pleaded guilty to injury to a child and wassentenced to fifteen years’imprisonment.

Applicant filed these applications for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the

district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. The trial court

construed the second writ application as a supplement to the initial writ application.

Applicant raises claims challenging the validity of his conviction and hissentence. He alleges

he is serving a sentence that does not fall within the applicable range of punishment. Based on the

record, the trial court has determined that Applicant is serving an illegal sentence. The trial court

recommends denying relief on the claims challenging the validity of the conviction. We agree with

the trial court’s findings. Applicant’s claims relating to the validity of his conviction are denied. 
2

With respect to Applicant’s punishment, reliefis granted . Ex parte Pue, 552 S.W.3d 226, 228

(Tex. Crim. App. 2018); Ex parte Parrott, 396 S.W.3d 531, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The

sentence in cause number F-04-71691-N in the 195 District Court of Dallas County isset aside, and

th

Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Dallas County for new punishment

proceedings. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within ten days from the date

of this Court’s mandate.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department ofCriminalJustice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: February 24, 2021

Do not publish
The following documents my recollection ofevents in September 1999: EPA and BIA planned for EPA to present a training session entitled "TSCA PCB Regulations" to the members ofthe Navajo Nation and others on September 28-29, 1999 in Gallup, NM. Beginning in February 1998, EPA had discussed with Jerold Gidner ofBIA in Washington, DC, PCB-related events in the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota and South Dakota. In schools and administrative buildings in the Standing Rock Reservation, PCB-containing fluorescent light ballasts leaked and dripped onto desk tops and carpets, which were eventually removed or cleaned up. EPA soughtto present information about the PCB-related events in Standing Rock with the trainees. Justbefore the beginning ofthe training in New Mexico, I asked Mr. Gidner what the total cost ofthe cleanup at Standing Rock was so that I could include this information in my presentation. Mr. Gidner responded that the cost was more than $500,000, at which time I entered this cost amount into the training materials. Ihave attached the two presentation pages (7 and 8) about the PCB events in Standing Rock from the training materials.

John H. Smith, Ph.D.

# THE STANDING ROCK EXP ENCE PART I On February 2, 1998, BIA staffin the administration building complained ofrespiratory problems to BIA. On February 6 and 7, 1998 a BIA contractor conducts extensive testing. Results negative

.. Concurrently, BIA contacts the manufacturer ofthe fluorescent lightballasts in several building and finds the ballasts containpolychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs). BIApresumes thatthe initial sampling was invalid and hires another contractorto recheck for PCBs.

# THE STANDING ROCK EXPERIENCE PART II February 20-27, 1998, the new contractor collects samples under suspectedballastreleases and analyzes for PCBs, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans. Several ofthese samples show levels ofPCBs above EPA's cleanup levels. BIA decontaminates all areas where it finds any detectable level ofPCBs. In addition to fluorescent lightballasts and light fixtures, BIA removes office equipment and carpeting and disposes ofall as PCB waste. The high school building where contamination was found was closed from February to June, butreopened for summer school. BIA spent in excess of$500,000 to cleanup the contaminatedbuildings.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 2469** 

RONNIE LYNN MOSS , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; TODAY'S OPTIONS , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. John A. Gibney, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 00562

- JAG )

Submitted : March 18, 2014 Decided: May 2, 2014

Before SHEDD and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ronnie Lynn Moss, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronnie Lynn Moss seeks to appeal the district court’s ord er dismissing without prejudice the particularized complaint he filed in his challenge to the denial of a Medicare claim
. The complaint was dismissed after Moss failed to comply with the court’s direction to allege additional facts and provide documentati on demonstrating his exhaustion of administrative remedies. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Ben eficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order Moss seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order , as Moss may be able to save his action by filing an amended complaint curing the deficienc ies identified by the district
court . Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Mary M. Rawls v. Jeffrey Clark Rawls

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00568

- CV

Trial court case number: 2007

- 61678

Trial court: 246th District Court of Harris Cou nty

On February 24, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Disposition of Appeal by

Settlement.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure do not permit an appellate court to order a new

trial on the agreement of the parties absent reversible error, or to vacate a trial court’s judgment

absent reversible error or a settlement. See 

### T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 42.1 & cmt

.

The motion is DENIED, without prejudice to refiling to describe, with citation to

authorities, the basis for the parties’ contention that the tria l court committed reversible error in

granting summary judgment. If appellee chooses instead to file his brief, the Court EXTENDS

the deadline for filing same to March 28, 2014.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

X A cting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 27, 2014