alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022241EN.01002001.xml

| 24.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/20

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 241/09)

| Member State | Finland |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned routes | Helsinki – Joensuu
  Helsinki – Jyväskylä
  Helsinki – Kajaani
  Helsinki – Kemi
  Helsinki – Kokkola |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 61 days after the day of publication of the present invitation |
| Contract period | 31 October 2022 –30 July 2023 |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge | Further information: Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom)
  Address:





  PO Box 320 |
| FI-00059 Traficom |
| FINLAND |

Member State

Finland

Concerned routes

Helsinki – Joensuu

Helsinki – Jyväskylä

Helsinki – Kajaani

Helsinki – Kemi

Helsinki – Kokkola

Deadline for submission of tenders

61 days after the day of publication of the present invitation

Contract period

31 October 2022 –30 July 2023

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge

Further information: Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom)

Address:

PO Box 320

FI-00059 Traficom

FINLAND

kirjaamo@traficom.fi

www.traficom.fi/en/transport/aviation/air-public-service-obligations

---
#### SEARCY v. STATE.

No. 20780.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 24, 1940.

G. H. Crane, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft; the punishment, confinement in jail for ten days.

The record is before us without a state-' ment of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

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.
#### FARRIS v. STATE.

No. 20254.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 22, 1939.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1939.

H. P. Allen and J. Meek Hawkins, both of Houston, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was indicted for the theft of property over the value of fifty dollars, an automobile, and as a second offender he was awarded the highest penalty of ten years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and no procedural matters that are presented to us for review. However we do find a statement of facts, and appellant’s attorneys complain in their brief of the insufficiency of the facts. We find that the person who lost the automobile was rather vague in his identification of the car which was returned to him, and which was found in appellant’s possession, but we also find that other witnesses identify the car by means of a secret number placed thereon by the credit company.

Appellant also complains because of the court’s charge relative to the prior offense of like character, which was used in an enhancement of the punishment in the event of a conviction. We note that there were no objections nor exceptions filed to the charge, and we also think that the charge fairly submitted such matter to the jury.

After an examination of the facts we are impressed with the idea that same show appellant in possession of the recently stolen automobile, with no reasonable explanation thereof. See Branch’s P.C., p. 1332. We think the facts are sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant, in his motion for a rehearing, contends that we erred in our original opinion in this case in holding the evidence sufficient to identify the alleged stolen property as' that taken from the owner thereof.

We have again reviewed the record and remain of the opinion that the testimony shows that the automobile found in appellant’s possession was the one fraudulently taken from the possession of the owner.

Since this is the only contention urged by appellant, the motion for a rehearing is overruled.

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.
exv10w32



 








Exhibit 10.32




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE

FIRST AMENDED & RESTATED REAL PROPERTY SUBLEASE AGREEMENT

DATED JUNE 1, 2004

BETWEEN

THREE-FIVE SYSTEMS, INC.

AND

BRILLIAN CORPORATION



THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE FIRST AMENDED & RESTATED REAL PROPERTY SUBLEASE
AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into as of the 12th day of July, 2004, by
and between BRILLIAN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation whose principle place
of business is located at 1600 North Desert Drive, Tempe, AZ, 85281
(hereinafter referred to as “Brillian”) and THREE-FIVE SYSTEMS, INC., a
Delaware, U.S.A. corporation, with its principle place of business located at
1600 North Desert Drive, Tempe, Arizona 85281 (hereinafter referred to as
“TFS”).




RECITALS




     A. On September 1, 2003, TFS and Brillian entered into a Real Property
Sublease Agreement (the “Original Agreement”), whereby TFS leased certain
property, and provided certain services to Brillian.



     B. On June 1, 2004, TFS and Brillian amended the Original Agreement and
entered into the First Amended and Restated Real Property Sublease Agreement
(“Restated Agreement”).



     C. TFS and Brillian now wish to amend the Restated Agreement.



     In consideration of the foregoing recitals and mutual covenants
hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:



AGREEMENT




1. Section 3(b). Building Services Rent




     The Base Sublease Rent is hereby reduced by $35,000 USD per annum or
$2,916.67 per month. This reduction takes into account that the TFS Facilities
Manager will no longer be providing any services to Brillian. Prior to this,
TFS’ Facility Manager was devoting approximately one-half of his working time
to Brillian services. TFS was charging Brillian $35,000 USD per annum or
$2,916.67 per month (1/2 the cost of TFS’ Facility Manager’s salary) for those
services. Brillian now wishes to perform those services solely by itself. As
a result Brillian’s annual Base Sublease Rent of $202,884 shall be reduced to
$167,884. Brillian’s monthly installments shall be reduced from $16,907 to
$13,990.33.



2. Exhibit D (“Building Services”)




     Line item Number 1 described as, “Salaries, Benefits, Taxes,” shall be
deleted in its entirety.



3. Modification of Agreement




     To the extent that this Amendment No. 1 conflicts with the Restated
Agreement, this Amendment No. 1 shall control. Otherwise, the Restated
Agreement and this Amendment No. 1 will be considered as one document, and all
other terms and conditions in the Restated Agreement shall remain applicable.



 









 






     The parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	THREE-FIVE SYSTEMS, INC.	 	BRILLIAN CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ George Pisaruk
	 	Name:
	 	/s/ Korbi McDonald
	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	Name: George Pisaruk	 	Address: 1600 N. Desert Drive, Tempe, AZ 85281
	Its: General Counsel	 	Date: 8/12/04








2
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 Annual Report of Commercial Property Corporation (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending October 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual
Report"), we, David C. Merrell, President and Corie Merrell,
Secretary/Treasurer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (1) The Annual Report 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.


Dated: 9/14/2004                          /s/David C. Merrell
      ----------                          -------------------------
                                          David C. Merrell
                                          President and Director


Dated: 9/14/2004                          /s/Corie Merrell
      ----------                          -------------------------
                                          Corie Merrell
                                          Secretary and Treasurer
VIRGINIA:

 In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court 

Building in the City of Richmond on Friday, the 14th day of 

November, 1997. 

Edwin Cecil Turner, Jr., Appellant, 

 against Record No. 962555 

 Court of Appeals No. 0986-94-3 

Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee. 

 Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the 

Court of Appeals of Virginia on the 1st day of October, 

1996. 

 Upon consideration of the record, the briefs, and argument of 

counsel, the Court is of opinion that no error exists in the 

judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia upholding a trial 

court's judgment confirming the verdict of a jury that found Edwin 

Cecil Turner, Jr., "guilty of first degree murder and fix[ed] his 

punishment at: imprisonment for life." 

 At trial, the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke instructed 

the jury on the definitions of first degree murder, second degree 

murder, self defense, and irresistible impulse, but ruled that the 

evidence was insufficient to support an instruction defining 

voluntary manslaughter. The Court of Appeals reversed that 

ruling, but held that the trial court's error was harmless and 

affirmed the conviction and the penalty imposed. Turner v.

Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 270, 476 S.E.2d 504 (1996). For the 

reasons stated by the Court of Appeals, its judgment is affirmed. 

 Justice Koontz took no part in the consideration or 

disposition of this appeal. 

 The defendant will pay to the Commonwealth thirty dollars in 
damages. 

 It is ordered that the said circuit court allow counsel for 

the appellant a fee of $725 for services rendered the appellant on 

this appeal, in addition to counsel's costs and necessary direct 

out-of-pocket expenses. 

 The Commonwealth shall recover of the appellant the amount 

paid court-appointed counsel to represent him in this proceeding, 

counsel's costs and necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses, and 

the fees and costs to be assessed by the clerk of this Court and 

the clerks of the courts below. 

JUSTICE LACY and JUSTICE HASSELL, dissent. 

 This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals of 

Virginia and the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke and shall be 

published in the Virginia Reports. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 

 David B. Beach, Clerk 

Costs due the Commonwealth 

 by appellant in the Supreme 

 Court of Virginia: 

 Attorney's fee: $725.00 plus costs and expenses 

Teste: 

 Clerk
Energy Conservation Standards forCommercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat PumpsANOPR Public MeetingRulemaking OverviewBuilding Technologies ProgramOffice of Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyU.S. Department of EnergySeptember 30, 20042Purpose of the Public MeetingTo present methodologies and characterize results for analyses todateTo discuss specific issues related to each analysisTo seek input from attendees on methodologies, assumptions anddata sourcesTo describe upcoming analyses and next steps3The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) directs DOE to considerseven factors when setting energy conservation standardsFactorAnalysis1. Economic impact on consumersand manufacturersLife-cycle cost analysisManufacturer impact analysis2. Lifetime operating cost savingsLife-cycle cost analysis3. Total projected energy savingsNational impact analysis4. Impact on utility or performanceScreening AnalysisEngineering analysis5. Impact of any lessening ofcompetitionManufacturer impact analysis6. Need for national energyconservationNational impact analysis7. Other factors the Secretaryconsiders relevantEnvironmental assessmentUtility impact analysisEmployment impact analysis4Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: ANOPRFrameworkDocumentANOPRNOPR 

# F i n a l Ru l eEffectiveDateScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysesMarket &TechnologyAssessment5Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: NOPRFrameworkDocumentANOPR NOPR 

# F i n a l

R u l eEffectiveDateManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisTrialStandardLevelsReviseANOPRAnalysesEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysis6Issues for Public Comment1. Approaches to Analyses for SplitSystems, Heat Pumps, and NicheEquipment2. Alternative Refrigerant Analysis3. Candidate Standards Levels4. Design Option Analysis and MaximumEnergy Efficiency Levels5. Industrial Buildings6. Economizer Performance7. Fan Energy Consumption8. Equipment Markups9. Hourly Based Electricity Prices10. Forecasts of Electricity Prices11. Equipment Lifetime12. Maximum Market Share of CommercialUnitary Air Conditioning Equipment13. Future Building Types UsingCommercial Unitary Equipment14. Customer Sub-Groups15. Effective Date ofNew Standards andPhaseout Date of R-22 Refrigerant16. Independent Expert Third-Party Reviewsa. Sample of Buildingsb. BLAST and CBECS Estimates of EnergyUsec. Supply Fan Energy Use While Ventilatingd. Incremental Markups17. Effect of Income Taxes on Life-CycleCost18. Technologies thatAffect Full- or PartLoad Performance19. Environmental Assessment20. Rebound Effect7Comments from ParticipantsParticipants are invited to provide summary comments orstatementsParticipants are invited to raise additional issues for discussiontodayANOPR comment period open through November 12, 2004
# C_2023203EN.01001701.xml

| 9.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/17

---

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.107580

(2023/C 203/16)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 31.5.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.107580 |
| Member State | Slovenia |
| Region | Slovenia |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | TCTF: Finančno nadomestilo pridelovalcem jabolk in hrušk zaradi visokih stroškov pridelave po agresiji Rusije proti Ukrajini |
| Legal basis | predlog odloka o finančnem nadomestilu pridelovalcem jabolk in hrušk zaradi visokih stroškov pridelave po agresiji Rusije proti Ukrajini |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: 390 000 EUR |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.8.2023 |
| Economic sectors | Growing of perennial crops |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano |
| Dunajska cesta 22, 1000 Ljubljana |

Date of adoption of the decision

31.5.2023

Aid number

SA.107580

Member State

Slovenia

Region

Slovenia

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

TCTF: Finančno nadomestilo pridelovalcem jabolk in hrušk zaradi visokih stroškov pridelave po agresiji Rusije proti Ukrajini

Legal basis

predlog odloka o finančnem nadomestilu pridelovalcem jabolk in hrušk zaradi visokih stroškov pridelave po agresiji Rusije proti Ukrajini

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 390 000 EUR

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.8.2023

Economic sectors

Growing of perennial crops

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano

Dunajska cesta 22, 1000 Ljubljana

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

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3082 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3082

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 5919 Chef Menteur Highway in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ``Daryle 
                    Holloway Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2015

 Mr. Richmond (for himself, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Mr. 
Boustany, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. Fleming) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 5919 Chef Menteur Highway in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ``Daryle 
                    Holloway Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DARYLE HOLLOWAY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 5919 Chef Menteur Highway in New Orleans, Louisiana, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Daryle Holloway Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Daryle 
Holloway Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME OF J. C.
PENNEY FUNDING CORPORATION AS OF JANUARY 29, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,588
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,588
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              355
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           145
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,088
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,588
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (71)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     71
<INCOME-TAX>                                        25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 46
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        46
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Docket No. FAA - 2012 - 0294
# Appendix 7



# GREENHOUSE WARMING

POTENTIALS 2007

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL

ON CLIMATE CHANGE

PARTII SECTION B QUESTION 2

GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL

(TIME HORIZON)

SPECIES CHEMICAL LIFETIME AND 100 YEARS

FORMULA REFERENCE

CARBON DIOXIDE CO 2 BERN MODEL, 1

REVISED

HCF 143a CH 3 CF 3 52 4470

HFC 125 C 2 HF 5 29 3500

HFC 32 CH 2 F 27 4.9 675

HFC 134a CH 2 FCF 3 14 1430

HFC 227ea CF 3 CHFCF 3 34.2 3220

HFC152a CH 3 CHF 2 1.4 124
[Nos. 44376-3-I; 45975-9-I.

Division One.

December 26, 2000.]

#### Nicole DeBerge, *Appellant,*v. The City of Seattle, *Respondent.*

Appeals from a judgment and order of the Superior Court for King County, No. 97-2-08434-2, Donald D. Haley, J., entered February 9 and February 26, 1999. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Cox and Ellington, JJ.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3641

_____________________________
N ICHOLAS D. W ARREN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court f or Duval County

. Waddell A. Wallace , Judge

. January 3, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R AY , K ELSEY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_ ____________________________2 Jason T. Forman, Fort Lauderdale
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.