alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 287/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 287 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 627 November 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 287

English edition

Legislation

Volume 627 November 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Decision (EU) 2019/1817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2019 on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Austria, Italy and Romania | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Decision (EU) 2019/1817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2019 on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Austria, Italy and Romania

1

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

Any revenue provided for in Article 21(2) and (3) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.

Figures for outturn refer to all authorised appropriations, including budget appropriations, additional appropriations and earmarked revenue.

Budgetary remarks are only executable insofar as they do not modify or extend the scope of an existing legal base, impinge on the administrative autonomy of institutions and can be covered by available resources (as indicated in the annex to the executability letter dated 28 October 2015).

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### HUFF et al. v. REID et al.

Nos. 13024, 13030, 13033, 13049.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Sept. 1, 1937.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 1937.

E. C. Overall, of Gonzales, for relators.

William F. Koch, of San Antonio, and Miller & Miller, of Gonzales, for respondents.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

Relators have presented a series of motions in aid of their effort to appeal by writ of error upon paupers’ affidavits, without payment of costs, as provided by statute. Article 2266, R.S.1925, as amended by Acts 1931, 42d Leg., p. 226, c. 134, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 2266) ; Article 2278a, added by Acts 1930, 41st Leg., 4th Called Sess., p. 91, c. 50, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 2278a).

Relators have filed motions for extension of time in which to file statement of facts and transcript of the record relating to the proceedings upon the paupers’ affidavits and the contest thereof by the respondents. This court granted said motion for additional time for filing the statement of facts adduced upon the hearing of the affidavit and contest thereof, and relators, in pursuance of that extension, have tendered a statement of facts, made up and duly authenticated by the trial judge, which has been ordered filed herein as the lawful statement of facts in the matter. At the same time relators'tendered a statement of facts made up and verified by their counsel, with a prayer that it be substituted in lieu of the statement duly authenticated by the trial judge; it being contended by relators that the' statement presented by them is full and correct, while that prepared and certified to by the judge is neither full or correct. We overrule the request for quite obvious reasons.

It appears that upon the hearing the trial judge sustained the contest of relators’ affidavit of inability to pay or secure the costs of appeal, and refused to direct the clerk and court reporter to furnish to re-lators a free transcript of the record and the evidence, or to authorize appeal upon said affidavit in' lieu of bond. We have carefully reviewed the evidence adduced upon the hearing of that matter, and hold that it does not appear from that evidence that the trial judge by his said finding abused the discretion lodged in him by law in sucli matters.

It follows that as no appeal has been perfected in the main case, either by cost bond or by a sustained affidavit in lieu thereof, this court has no active or potential jurisdiction of the cause, and all motions, including relators’ application for writs of mandamus requiring the court officials to furnish a free transcript to relators, must accordingly be dismissed.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
September 30, 1997 for Aetna Inc. and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              SEPT-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            32,612
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       1,402
<MORTGAGE>                                       6,014
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      533
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  43,314
<CASH>                                           1,333
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           2,373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,147
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 18,115
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                199
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   3,263
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           18,939
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  2,374
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              865
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,862
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,147
<PREMIUMS>                                       9,418
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              2,506
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 130
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   1,694
<BENEFITS>                                       9,684
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        159
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,069
<INCOME-TAX>                                       442
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                627
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       627
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
<FN>
<F1>There is not a material difference between primary and fully diluted
earnings per common share.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### JACKSON v. STATE.

No. 18752.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 27, 1937.

Culwell & Culwell, of Amarillo, and Art Schlofman, of Dalhart, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for theft of chickens; punishment eighteen months in the penitentiary.

We find in the record an original transcript and two supplemental transcripts, the second of which supplemental transcripts contains three bill of exceptions, each of which appears to have been filed on the 9th of December, 1936, by the clerk of the trial court. The notice of appeal herein was entered on September 14, 1936, and the trial term of the court below adjourned on the same day. Nothing in the record reflects the allowance of any time in which to file bills of exceptions — in which case appellant would be relegated to the statutory allowance of 30 days after the adjournment of court. In the first supplemental transcript referred to appears an order of the trial court of date October 19, 1936, attempting to grant to appellant an extension of SO days from that date in which to file bills of exceptions and statement of facts. In numerous cases this court has said that for an order of extension of time to be effective, same must be made at some time during the trial term of the court below, or else within the 30 days allowed by statute from the adjournment of the court, or else within a period of time included in some order already made. It appearing from the record before us that the order of the court, attempting to grant appellant said 50 days for filing bills of exceptions, was not made within 30 days after adjournment, and not within any period theretofore granted for such filing, we are compelled to hold said three bills of exceptions filed too late, and that same cannot be considered. The statement of facts seems amply sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7223

MARIO ANTON LEE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, U.S.P. Hazelton,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:20-cv-00180-GMG)

Submitted: November 17, 2021 Decided: November 30, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Anton Lee, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mario Anton Lee, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on Lee’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, and 

the district court’s order denying reconsideration. Because Lee challenged the legality of 

his sentence, Lee’s § 2241 petition should be construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. See Fontanez v. O’Brien, 807 F.3d 84, 86 (4th Cir. 2015) (“As a general matter, a 

federal prisoner must challenge the execution of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and 

the sentence itself under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”). However, any such motion had to be filed

in the Northern District of Alabama, the court that sentenced Lee; therefore, the district 

court lacked jurisdiction to consider Lee’s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (requiring 

motion under § 2255 to be filed by “the court which imposed the sentence”). Moreover, 

to the extent that Lee sought to invoke the savings clause of § 2255(e), he failed to meet 

the requirements for bringing a challenge to his sentence under § 2241. See United States 

v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard for challenging sentence 

under § 2255(e) and § 2241). Accordingly, we affirm. See Tyler v. Hooks, 945 F.3d 159, 

170 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record), cert. 

denied, 140 S. Ct. 2785 (2020). We deny Lee’s motion for the appointment of counsel and 

motions for bail or release pending appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, DC 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 January 30, 2007
 Pioneer Companies, Inc.
  Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction 
of incorporation)
    
    000-31230
(Commission File Number)
    
    06-1215192
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 700 Louisiana, Suite 4300, Houston, Texas
(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    77002
(Zip Code)
 713) 570-3200
  see
 o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial ConditionItem 8.01 Other EventsItem 9.01. Financial Statements and ExhibitsSIGNATURESEXHIBIT INDEXPress Release    Table of Contents  
 Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition
   
 Item 8.01 Other Events
   
    
    expanding the sites manufacturing capacity by 49,000 ECUs to meet the demand
from nearby industrial customers for chlorine supplied by pipeline at a
competitive delivered price;
 
    
    meeting increasing customer demand for high-quality membrane caustic soda;
 
    
    significantly lower variable and fixed unit costs at the plant, due to:
 
    
    improved energy efficiency from the new membrane
cells which use approximately 29% less energy than the technology
currently used at the plant; and
 
    
    reduced maintenance and operating costs resulting
from the use of the newer technology;
 
    
    the incremental gross margin contribution from the additional 49,000 ECUs of
production capacity; and
 
    
    eliminating the use of mercury at this plant.




---



##### Table of Contents








---



##### Table of Contents



Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits
  ExhibitNumber
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release dated January 30, 2007 announcing the expansion
of its chlor-alkali plant in St. Gabriel, Louisiana
 
   PIONEER COMPANIES, INC.By:
    /s/ Gary PittmanGary Pittman,Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBIT INDEX
 ExhibitNumber
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release dated January 30, 2007 announcing the expansion
of its chlor-alkali plant in St. Gabriel, Louisiana
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Richard Beyer, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd., certify, for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2010 (the Quarterly Report), which this statement accompanies fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor
Holdings I, Ltd.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 1350.

Dated: July 23, 2010



/s/ RICHARD BEYERRichard BeyerChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.
April 13, 2012

Mr. Robert S. Walker Chief Pilot/Drug Program Manager CAL-ORE Life Flight, LLC 202 Dale Rupert Road Crescent City, CA 95531

Dear Mr. Walker:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulati ons (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 23, 2012, exemption request on behalf of CAL-ORE Life Flight, LLC into the public docket (No. FAA-2012-0362), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you m ust send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
# C_2022404EN.01003401.xml

| 20.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 404/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 404/34

---

Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA’s) mission

(2022/C 404/06)

Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), Article 36(2), provides that the European Food Safety Authority's ‘Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director, shall draw up a list to be made public of competent organisations designated by the Member States which may assist the Authority, either individually or in networks, with its mission.’

The list was first drawn up by EFSA’s Management Board on 19 December 2006, and since then is:

| i. | updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA’s Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2)), and |
| --- | --- |

i.

updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA’s Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2)), and

| ii. | made public on EFSA’s website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

made public on EFSA’s website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published.

This respective information is available on the EFSA website, at the following locations:

| i. | the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA’s Management Board on 6 October 2022 – [https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/92nd-management-board-web-meeting], and |
| --- | --- |

i.

the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA’s Management Board on 6 October 2022 – [https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/92nd-management-board-web-meeting], and

| ii. | the updated list of competent organisations – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/partnersnetworks/scorg |
| --- | --- |

ii.

the updated list of competent organisations – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/partnersnetworks/scorg

EFSA will keep this Notice updated, specifically regarding the provided website links.

For more information please contact Cooperation.Article36@efsa.europa.eu.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004 of 23 December 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the network of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s mission (OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 64), as last amended.

---
# Official Journal C 185/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 185 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5924 May 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 185

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5924 May 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 185/1 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7992 — Starwood Capital Group/Banco Sabadell/JV) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2016/C 185/2 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7985 — Segro/PSPIB/Target Assets) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 185/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7992 — Starwood Capital Group/Banco Sabadell/JV) (
  1
  )

1

1

2016/C 185/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7985 — Segro/PSPIB/Target Assets) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 185/3 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 185/3

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 185/4 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 3 |
| 2016/C 185/5 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 7 |
| 2016/C 185/6 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 11 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2016/C 185/4

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

3

2016/C 185/5

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

7

2016/C 185/6

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

11

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN