alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015058EN.01000601.xml

| 18.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/6

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2015/C 58/05)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Finland

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : The 150th anniversary of the birth of composer Jean Sibelius

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : At the inner part of the coin is sky with stars, tree tops at the right. The text ‘JEAN SIBELIUS’ and the year of issuance ‘2015’ are placed at the left inner part of the coin. At the right is the indication of the issuing country ‘FI’ and the mint mark.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : January 2015

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
#### GABLE v. STATE.

*No.*14314.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 22, 1931.

*97G. E. Florence, of Gilmer, for appellant.

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

MORROW, P. J.

Unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor is the offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The indictment is regular and regularly presented. The record is before us without statement of facts and bills of exception.

A new trial was sought upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. Affidavits were attached to the motion in which the purported new evidence was revealed. In the judgment of the court overruling the motion for new trial it is recited that the court heard the motion and the evidence thereon. From this recital the presumption follows that, in overruling the motion, the court acted within its discretion upon sufficient evidence. See Crouchette v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 572, 271 S. W. 99; Harris v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 35 S.W.(2d) 1046, and authorities cited. We will add, however, that, in the absence of a statement of what evidence was before the court on the trial of the case, this court is not able to determine the cogency or sufficiency of the alleged newly discovered evidence, and must indulge the presumption that, in overruling the motion for new trial, the alleged newly discovered evidence was not regarded by the court such as likely to bring about a different result.

No fundamental error having been perceived or pointed out, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTIAGO HERNANDEZ-URCINO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-70616 

Agency No. A088-915-064 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 20, 2021**

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Santiago Hernandez-Urcino, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from 

an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding 

of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 29 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-70616 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 

2014). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that HernandezUrcino failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected 

ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if 

membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show 

that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”);

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be 

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang 

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Hernandez-Urcino’s 

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Hernandez-Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by 

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




National
Presto Industries, Inc.


Eau
Claire, Wisconsin




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (File No. 33-46711) of our reports dated March 16, 2010, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of National
Presto Industries, Inc, and the effectiveness of National Presto Industries,
Inc’s internal control over financial reporting,  which appears in
this Form 10-K.


/s/
      BDO Seidman, LLPMilwaukee,
      WisconsinMarch
      16, 2010
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of DC Brands International, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Armstrong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Robert H. Armstrong


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)


November 19, 2013
### fluorescent _ and_ To: incandescent

lamps cc: rulemaking Subject: Follow-up to June 15 Public Meeting on Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps Rulemaking Sent by: Brenda 0 Federal Record Not a Federal Record Edwards-Jones 06/22/2006 12:22 PM

User Filed as : Not Categorized in ERMS

The slides presented during the meeting are now posted on the Department's webpage as a pdf file at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance-standards/residential/pdfs/lamps_presentation.pdf As a reminder, the public comment period closes on June 29th. Please follow the procedures for submitting comments outlined both in the Federal Register Notice and the Department's public meeting webpage: 

### http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance-standards/residential/lamps_meeting_061506.html During the meeting, a stakeholder requested a copy of the Screening Analysis criteria, and the Department agreed to provide it to everyone. The screening criteria are described on page 24 of the Framework Document and are excerpted here:
4. SCREENING ANALYSIS The purpose of the screening analysis is to screen out technology design options that will not be considered in the rulemaking for general service fluorescent lamps, incandescent reflector lamps and additional general service incandescent lamps. DOE will screen out technology design options according to four criteria, as noted below. Through its own research and in consultation with interested parties, the Department will develop a list of design options for consideration. Initially, the candidate design options or best available technologies will encompass all those technologies that may be technologically feasible. Following development of this initial list of design options, the Department will review each design option or best available technology based on the following four criteria, as addressed in sections 4(a)(4) and 5(b) of the Process Rule: 1. Technological feasibility. Design options that are not incorporated in commercially available lamps or in working prototypes will not be considered further. 2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is determined that mass production of a design option or reliable installation and servicing of a design option could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market by the time of the effective date of the energy conservation standard, then that design option will not be considered further. 3. Impacts on lamp utility to consumers. If a design option is determined to have significant adverse impact on the utility of the lamp to significant subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered lamp type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, size, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as lamps generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further. 

### 4. Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a design option will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further. 

## Sincerely, Linda Graves, Esq., Program Manager , Lighting Team (202) 586-1851
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

Costco Wholesale Corporation 

Executive Bonus Plan 
 For fiscal year 2018,
executive officers are, depending upon the individual, eligible for a bonus award of up to approximately $200,000. The final bonus amounts are subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee. 

Eligibility for up to 50% of the bonus amount is determined by whether the Company has met its pre-tax income goal for the year, as indicated in the
Company’s internal budget. 
 The remaining 50% is determined by goals relevant to the executive officer’s area of responsibility: 

For those whose responsibilities are operational, the goals relate to sales, controllable expenses, shrink, and pre-tax profit
in their areas of responsibility. 
 For those whose responsibilities are primarily buying, the goals relate to sales, gross
margin, shrink, and inventory turns in their areas of responsibility. 
 For those who responsibilities combine operational
and buying functions, the goals relate to a combination of those described in the prior two paragraphs. 
 For those whose
responsibilities are staff functions, the goals relate to a combination of Company-wide operational and buying goals, in addition to qualitative factors relevant to their areas of responsibility. 

To be eligible for the annual bonus, the individual must still be employed by the Company at the time bonus checks are issued (November).
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive
Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Of 2002





In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Portsmouth
Square, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John V. Winfield, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | · | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
5(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | · | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ John V. Winfield

John V. Winfield

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)



Date: August 24, 2012





A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth Square, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

128768 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly TERI ROHDE, BRENDON QUILTER, MARY Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. QUILTER, WALTER MACKEY, BARBARA Stephen J. Markman, MACKEY, GARY GIBSON, ELLEN GIBSON, Justices TED JUNGKUNTZ, LOISE JUNGKUNTZ, DAVID SPONSELLER, MA RY SPONSELLER, MIKE GLADIEUX, MA RTHA GLADIEUX, HELEN RYSSE, TERR Y TROMBLEY, JOHN WILLIAMS, and THERESE WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 128768 COA: 253565 Washtenaw CC: 03-001046-CZ ANN ARBOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS a/k/a PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR, BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ANN ARBOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ANN ARBOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, a nd TREASURER OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ANN ARBOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendants-Appellees,

and

ANN ARBOR EDUCATI ON ASSOCIATION, MEA/NEA, Intervening D efendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the Ap ril 14, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take ot her peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties shall address at o ral argument only the issu e of what constitutes
an effective demand under MCL 129 .61. They may file suppl emental briefs, limited to this issue, within 28 days of the date of this order.

p025 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2006

Clerk
|Exhibit 99.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICERIN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


In
connection with the quarterly report of New Century Equity Holdings Corp. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David P. Tusa, Chief Financial Officer and
Executive Vice President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge that:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(1) |  | The
Form 10-Q report for the three months ended March 31, 2003, filed with the
          Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2003, fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
          and
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | The
information contained in the Form 10-Q report for the three months ended           March
31, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial           condition and
results of operations of New Century Equity Holdings Corp.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|By: /s/ DAVID
      P. TUSA
            
      David P. Tusa
      Chief Financial Officer
      Executive Vice President |  | Date: April 24, 2003 | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------- | 

|
|
# C_2006261EN.01000702.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche Post AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third party: Citipost Gesellschaft für Kurier- und Postdienstleistungen mbH Hannover

(Case C-288/06)

(2006/C 261/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant:

Third party: Citipost Gesellschaft für Kurier- und Postdienstleistungen mbH Hannover

Third party:

Question referred

Is Article 47(2), in conjunction with Article 95 EC, the fifth indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in the version as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), to be interpreted as meaning that, where a universal service provider applies special tariffs for business customers who give postal items to the sorting office pre-sorted for the postal network, that universal service provider is obliged to apply those special tariffs also to undertakings which collect postal items from the sender and give them pre-sorted for the postal network at the same access point and on the same terms and conditions as business customers, without the universal service provider being permitted to refuse to do so, having regard to its obligation to provide a universal service?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21.

1

---
#### TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. MERCER.

Motion No. 12375; No. 6513.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 15, 1936.

T. D. Gresham, of Dallas, and Head, Dillard, Maxey-Freeman & McReynolds and J. F. Holt, all of Sherman, for plaintiff in error.

Webb & Webb, of Sherman, for defendants in error.

O. B. Freeman, of Dallas, for defendant in error Gifford-Hill & Co.

CRITZ, Justice.

It appears from the record in this case that The Texas & Pacific Railway Company and E. F. Mercer were both dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals [58 S.W.(2d) 896] in this cause, and each filed an application for writ of error to this court. Both applications were granted.

It further appears that E. F. Mercer duly filed a writ of error bond, which bond contained the following condition:

> “Now, therefore, we E. F. Mercer, plaintiff in error, as principal, and A. S. Noble and A. E. Jamison, as sureties, acknowledge ourselves to pay to the Texas & Pacific Railway Company and Gifford-Hill & Company, defendants in error, the sum of two hundred dollars, conditioned that the said E. F. Mercer, plaintiff in error, shall prosecute his writ of error with effect, and pay all of the costs which have accrued in the Court of Civil Appeals, the District Court, and which may accrued in the Supreme Court.”

It further appears that on March 14, 1936, after final judgment in this court [90 S.W.(2d) 557], E. F. Mercer filed in this court his application for the issuance of mandate without the payment of costs. This application was accompanied by Mercer’s affidavit, under article 1774, R.C.S. of Texas 1925, of his inability to pay costs or give security therefor. On April 8, 1936, this court entered its order granting the application of said Mercer for the issuance of mandate without payment of costs. At the time such order was entered the fact that the above bond had been filed by Mercer was not called to our attention. Such has since been done.

Under the above record it appears that Mercer has already given security for all costs in this case in all courts. He therefore has no right to make affidavit under article 1774, supra. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Saxon, 59 S.W.(2d) 814 (Tex.Com.App., opinion approved).

It is adjudged that the order of this court heretofore entered on April 8, 1936, granting Mercer’s motion for issuance of mandate without payment of costs, be, and the same is, rescinded and set aside. It is further ordered that the motion for issuance of mandate without payment of costs be, and the same is, here and now in all things overruled.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (b)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: August 14, 2007
    CONSOLIDATION SERVICES, INC.By:
    /s/ Johnny R. ThomasJohnny R. ThomasChief Executive Officer