alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 236/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 236 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5810 September 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 236

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5810 September 2015

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1507 of 9 September 2015 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1371/2013 extending a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China to imports consigned, inter alia, from India, whether declared as originating in India or not | 1 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1508 of 9 September 2015 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 4 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2015/1509 of 4 September 2015 appointing an Italian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions | 7 |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2015/1510 of 4 September 2015 appointing an Estonian member and an Estonian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions | 8 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1507 of 9 September 2015 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1371/2013 extending a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China to imports consigned, inter alia, from India, whether declared as originating in India or not

1

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1508 of 9 September 2015 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

4

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (EU) 2015/1509 of 4 September 2015 appointing an Italian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

7

*

Council Decision (EU) 2015/1510 of 4 September 2015 appointing an Estonian member and an Estonian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

8

| 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.
#### ADAMS v. STATE.

No. 15495.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 25, 1933.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1933.

Lockhart & Brown and Tom Garrard, all of Lubbock, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for selling intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

By direct testimony the state showed the sale of one-half gallon of whisky to the party named in the indictment as the purchaser. Appellant swore that he did not make such sale. On cross-examination he admitted that the alleged purchaser was a man of good reputation, but insisted that there was a mistaken identity. Appellant introduced witnesses who gave testimony to his good reputation in all regards.

We find three bills of exception. One complains of the action of the state in eliciting from appellant while on the witness stand, the fact that he was under indictment in another felony case. The objection to this was that it was incompetent for any purpose. The uniform holding of this court is that it is permissible to ask such question under such circumstances, its affirmative answer being admissible as affecting the credibility of the accused. The court expressly limited in his charge the jury’s consideration of said testimony to such purpose.

Another bill of exception complains of the fact that the indictment for the other felony referred to, should not be held provable because it was returned by the same grand jury which returned the instant indictment. We think there is nothing in the objection.

The remaining bill of exception complains of argument of the state’s attorney in closing the case. The bill is qualified by the court with the statement that the argument of the district attorney was in answer to the argument made by appellant’s attorney. This would prevent our holding the argument erroneous, even if same was in fact of such character, which might be seriously doubted.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
#### WISCHKAEMPER et al. v. CLEMENT & WALKER.

No. 3985.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

March 15, 1933.

R. H. Templeton, of Wellington, for appellants.

J. B. Clark, of Shamrock, for appellee.

MARTIN, Justice.

Appellees filed suit upon a promissory note. Appellants, on April 19, 1932, filed their original answer consisting of a general demurrer and denial. On April 28, 1932, they filed amended answers, consisting of a general demurrer, followed by a special answer setting up certain facts, the effect of which was to show plaintiffs’ suit had been prematurely brought. It is appellees’ contention that the latter was in effect a plea in abatement and not being filed in due order of pleading has been waived. Exception was sustained to same and judgment rendered for appellees. The action of the trial court in sustaining an exception to the plea mentioned is the sole lav? question presented by. this appeal.

A plea of this nature has been held to be a plea in abatement. 1 C. J. p. 108; 1 Tex. Jur. p. 131, § 95. Such dilatory pleas are waived by filing an answer to the merits ahead of them. 1 Tex. Jur. p. 166, §§ 121,122; Holt v. Farmer (Tex. Com. App.) 56 S.W.(2d) 633.

The- judgment is affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
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 un published 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 priso ner, 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 i tself 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 u nder § 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 a ny grounds supported by the record), cert.
denied , 140 S. Ct. 2785 (2020). We deny Lee’s motion for the appointment of counsel and
motion s for bail or release pending appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adeq uately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit31.02

 

Certificationof Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to ExchangeAct Rule 13a-15f

 

I, P. B. (Pete) Pheffer , Chief FinancialOfficer of Presidential Life Corporation certify that:

 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and

 

(b) Designed such internal controlover financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and

 

(c) Evaluated the effectivenessof the company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d) Disclosed in this report anychange in the company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual reportthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

(a) All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control over financial reporting.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### NOV 6 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD H. LEWIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 97-5224 (D.C. No. 96-CV-523-B) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, BARRETT, and KELLY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1 The parties proceeded before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. -2- Claimant Edward H. Lewis appeals the district court’s order 1 affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny his application forsupplemental security income benefits. The Commissioner determined that Mr. Lew is could perform a limited range of light work available in significant number s in the national economy and, therefore, he is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Mr. Lewis contends (1) the Commissioner’s decision is n ot supported by substantial evidence, (2) the Commissioner failed to evaluate p roperly his allegations of disabling pain, and (3) the Commissioner erred in h olding that he can perform light work. We affirm. We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether corre ct legal standards were applied. SeeHawkins v. Chater , 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1997). Substantial evidence is “‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Soli z v. Chater , 82 F.3d 373, 375 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (further quotation omitted)). We may neither rewei gh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. SeeCasias v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991).-3-

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs submitted by the parties. Applying the standards s et out above, we affirm the denial of benefits for substantially the reasons st ated in the magistrate judge’s September 22, 1997 recommendation, as adopted by th e district court. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
!

Queen Creek

Maricopa Association of Governments

Pima Association of Governments

Pinal

Gila

Maricopa

Pima

Yavapai Navajo

Graham

Cochise

Q

u

e

e

n

C

r

e

e

k, A

riz

o

n

a

3

Federal Highways Administration

Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty

October 2011

! City

MPO

County
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 Sino United Worldwide Consolidated Ltd. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q/A
for the quarter ended  March 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), Chu Li An, as CEO of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



| | (1) | The
                                         Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable
                                         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 Registrant.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Dated: June
28, 2018





By: /s/
Yanru Zhou

Name:
Yanru Zhou

Title:
Chief Executive Officer

(Principal
Executive Officer)







A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sino United Worldwide Consolidated Ltd. and will be retained
by Sino United Worldwide Consolidated Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Power Designs, Inc. Consolidated Financial statements June 30, 1996 and 1995.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,395
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    174,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               207,881
<PP&E>                                          45,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,153
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 427,454
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,631,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           240
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,204,732)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   427,454
<SALES>                                        575,429
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               577,056
<CGS>                                          504,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  504,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               646,415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (573,532)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (573,532)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (573,532)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 2, 2020

izm 

# Order

Clerk April 2, 2020

161003 (23)

UMAR MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 161003

COA: 350986

LAKELAND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

WARDEN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to extend time is considered and it is

GRANTED.

Within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall comply with the terms

of the February 25, 2020 order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the

dismissal of this application.
**EXHIBIT 23.2****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of Enterprise GPHoldings L.P. on Form S-3 of our report dated February 28, 2007 (September 18, 2007 as to theeffects of the common control acquisition of the general partnership interests of Texas EasternProducts Pipeline Company, LLC, and certain limited partnership interests of TEPPCO Partners, L.P.and the related change in business segments described in Note 1, as well as subsequent events asdiscussed in Note 19), relating to the consolidated balance sheet of EPE Holdings, LLC as ofDecember 31, 2006, appearing in the Current Report on Form 8-K(File No. 1-32610) filed September 20, 2007 of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., and to the reference to us under the heading “Experts”in the Prospectus of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., which is part of this Registration Statement./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPHouston, Texas
October 1 5 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JEREMY PATRICK SHAKE SNIDER , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00272

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.1


WEX Inc.
Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan


Effective October 1, 2017 
Originally Adopted December 13, 2014


Annual Cash Retainers 


The Company shall pay each non-employee board member the following annual cash retainer(s) based upon his or her service. All payments hereunder shall be made in equal quarterly amounts. 


	
			
	Annual Chairman Cash Retainer
	$
	120,000

	Annual Lead Director Cash Retainer
	$
	85,000

	Annual Director Cash Retainer (other than Lead Director and Chairman)
	$
	70,000

	Audit Committee Chair Cash Retainer
	$
	30,000

	Compensation Committee Chair Cash Retainer
	$
	20,000

	Technology Committee Chair Cash Retainer
	$
	20,000

	Finance Committee Chair Cash Retainer
	$
	20,000

	Governance Committee Chair Cash Retainer
	$
	15,000

	Finance Committee Member Cash Retainer (other than Committee Chair)
	$
	10,000

	Audit Committee Member Cash Retainer (other than Committee Chair)
	$
	15,000

	Compensation Committee Member Cash Retainer (other than Committee Chair)
	$
	10,000

	Technology Committee Member Cash Retainer (other than Committee Chair)
	$
	10,000

	Governance Committee Member Cash Retainer (other than Committee Chair)
	$
	7,500






Equity Retainers


All directors other than the Lead Director shall, at the time of the annual stockholders’ meeting (“ASM”), shall be granted a number of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) worth the equivalent of $135,000 at the then current stock price.  Such RSUs will vest annually. 


The Lead Director shall, at the time of the ASM, shall be granted a number of RSUs worth the equivalent of $150,000 at the then current stock price.  The Chairman shall, at the time of the ASM, shall be granted a number of RSUs worth the equivalent of $185,000 at the then current stock price.  Such RSUs will vest annually. 


New Director Equity Grants


All new directors shall be granted a number of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) worth the equivalent of $50,000 at the then current stock price. Such RSUs will vest annually and will be granted at the next ASM after their appointment. 


Fee Deferral


Directors may defer all or part of their cash fees and equity retainers into deferred stock units which will be payable in Company shares to the Director only upon termination from Board Service. 


Expense Reimbursement 


Directors are reimbursed by the Company for their out-of-pocket travel and related expenses incurred in attending all Board and committee meetings. 


Pro-ration of Annual Cash Retainers for New Directors 


To the extent a director is appointed at a time other than the ASM, any Annual Cash Retainers will be prorated.