alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2011325EN.01006301.xml

| 8.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 325/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 325/63

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1270/2011 of 6 December 2011 fixing an acceptance percentage for the issuing of export licences, rejecting export-licence applications and suspending the lodging of export-licence applications for out-of-quota sugar

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 324 of 7 December 2011
  )

On page 27, recital 3:

for:

| ‘(3) | The quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceed the quantitative limit fixed by Article 1(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011. An acceptance percentage should therefore be set for quantities applied for on 1 December 2011. All export-licence applications for sugar lodged after 2 December 2011 should accordingly be rejected and the lodging of export-licence applications should be suspended,’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(3)

The quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceed the quantitative limit fixed by Article 1(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011. An acceptance percentage should therefore be set for quantities applied for on 1 December 2011. All export-licence applications for sugar lodged after 2 December 2011 should accordingly be rejected and the lodging of export-licence applications should be suspended,’,

read:

| ‘(3) | The quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceed the quantitative limit fixed by Article 1(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011. An acceptance percentage should therefore be set for quantities applied for on 1 December 2011 and 2 December 2011. All export-licence applications for sugar lodged after 2 December 2011 should accordingly be rejected and the lodging of export-licence applications should be suspended,’; |
| --- | --- |

‘(3)

The quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceed the quantitative limit fixed by Article 1(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011. An acceptance percentage should therefore be set for quantities applied for on 1 December 2011 and 2 December 2011. All export-licence applications for sugar lodged after 2 December 2011 should accordingly be rejected and the lodging of export-licence applications should be suspended,’;

on page 27, Article (1):

for:

‘1.   Export licences for out-of-quota sugar for which applications were lodged on 1 December 2011 shall be issued for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an acceptance percentage of 51,679586 %.’,

read:

‘1.   Export licences for out-of-quota sugar for which applications were lodged on 1 December 2011 and 2 December 2011 shall be issued for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an acceptance percentage of 51,679586 %.’.

---
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40194 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. NYTESHIA RACHELE DIAH, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CR-635-2

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Nyteshia Rachele Diah appeals he r gu ilty plea conviction of possession with intent to di stribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, and her sentence of 60 months of imprisonment. She argues that her guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the district court fail e d to adequately explain the nature of the charges against her, the potential results of perjuring herself, and the sentence she would face if she violated the conditions of her supervised release. The district court reviewed the charge against Diah at rearraignment, U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 11 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-40194 Document: 00512017000 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2012No. 12-40194

a s did the Government. The district court also reviewed the writt e n p l e a agreement, which included a statement of the charge to which she was pleading guilty, with Diah at rearraignment. Diah confirmed to the district court that she understood the c h a r ge, and had discussed both the charge and the plea agreement with her counsel. Diah h a s f a il e d t o show that the district court

c l e a rly or obviously erred in finding that Diah understood the nature of the charges again s t h e r . See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Reyna , 1 3 0 F

. 3 d 104, 110 (5th Cir. 1997). She does not argue that, but for the omission, she would not have pleaded guilty, and has shown no plain error. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135. As to the district court’s failure to inform Diah of the Government’s right, in a perjury proceeding, to use any statement she made against her, Diah does not claim much less show a reasonable p r ob ab ility that this minor deviation affected her decision to plead guilty. See Unit e d S t ates v. Dominguez-Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Even if the district court erred in failing to advise Diah that, if she violated the terms of her supervised release , she faced reimprisonment for the entire term of supervised release without credit for time served; see United States v. Reyes , 300 F.3d 555, 560 (5th Cir. 2002) ; Diah does not argue, much less show, that, but for this deviation, she would not have pleaded guilty. See Puckett , 566 U.S. at 135. Diah has shown no plain error in the district court’s conclusion that her guilty plea was knowing and the district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-40194 Document: 00512017000 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2012
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 this  Quarterly  Report of Mainland  Resources,  Inc.  (the
"Company")on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending August 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
J.  Newport,   President/Chief   Executive  Officer,   and  William  D.  Thomas,
Treasurer/Chief  Financial Officer,  of the Company,  certify to the best of our
knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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


Date: October 10, 2008

                                          /s/ MICHAEL J. NEWPORT
                                          _____________________________________
                                              Michael J. Newport
                                              President/Chief Executive Officer



Date: October 10, 2008

                                          /s/ WILLIAM D. THOMAS
                                          ______________________________________
                                              William D. Thomas
                                              Treasurer/ Chief Financial Officer
|WELLS FARGO(logo) | Commercial
Mortgage ServicingD1050-084, 8th Floor401 South Tryon St.Charlotte,
NC 282021-800-326-1334
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2012, by
and among UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization Corp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,
Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor and U.S. Bank, National
Association as Trustee, Certificiate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 2012-C4 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
assigned in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage
Services do hereby certify that:



|1. |  | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December
31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement
during such period has been made under my supervision, and
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|2. |  | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.                                                       



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of
the 28th day of February 2017.



|/s/ Daniel Bober         | 
|------------------------ | 
|Daniel Bober             | 
|Executive Vice President | 
|Wells Fargo Bank         | 



|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | Together we’ll go far
|---------------------- | ---------------------
# L_2012119EN.01004901.xml

| 4.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 119/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 119/49

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 2 May 2012

appointing three Spanish members and two Spanish alternate members of the Committee of the Regions

(2012/239/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

| (2) | Three members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Pedro CASTRO VÁZQUEZ, Mr Jordi HEREU I BOHER and Mr Alberto RUIZ-GALLARDÓN JIMÉNEZ. Two alternate members’ seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Paz FERNÁNDEZ FELGUEROSO and Mr Andrés OCAÑA RABADÁN, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Three members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Pedro CASTRO VÁZQUEZ, Mr Jordi HEREU I BOHER and Mr Alberto RUIZ-GALLARDÓN JIMÉNEZ. Two alternate members’ seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Paz FERNÁNDEZ FELGUEROSO and Mr Andrés OCAÑA RABADÁN,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| (a) | as members:






  — | Mr Juan Ignacio ZOIDO ÁLVAREZ, Alcalde de Sevilla, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

as members:

—

Mr Juan Ignacio ZOIDO ÁLVAREZ, Alcalde de Sevilla,

| — | Mr Abel CABALLERO ÁLVAREZ, Alcalde de Vigo, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Abel CABALLERO ÁLVAREZ, Alcalde de Vigo,

| — | Ms Nuria MARÍN MARTÍNEZ, Alcaldesa de Hospitalet de Llobregat, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Nuria MARÍN MARTÍNEZ, Alcaldesa de Hospitalet de Llobregat,

and

| (b) | as alternate members:






  — | Mr Ramón ROPERO MANCERA, Alcalde de Villafranca de los Barros, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

as alternate members:

—

Mr Ramón ROPERO MANCERA, Alcalde de Villafranca de los Barros,

| — | Mr Jordi SAN JOSÉ I BUENAVENTURA, Alcalde de Sant Feliú de Llobregat (Barcelona). |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Jordi SAN JOSÉ I BUENAVENTURA, Alcalde de Sant Feliú de Llobregat (Barcelona).

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 2 May 2012.

For the Council

The President

M. VESTAGER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

---
SCWC-11-0000063
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. SANDRA M. HEFFELFINGER, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. CAAP-11-0000063; CR. NO. 09-1-1889)
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (by: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ., and Circuit Judge Nishimura, in place of Duffy, J., recused) Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Sandra M. Heffelfinger’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on April 23, 2012, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 5, 2012.

Taryn R. Tomasa, Deputy Public Defender, on the application forPetitioner/DefendantAppellant. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Rhonda A. Nishimura Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000063 05-JUN-2012 02:10 PM
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





Each
      of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of RINO
      International Corporation (the "Company"), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to the best of his knowledge:




(1)
            The
                Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
                March
                31, 2008 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.




Dated:
      August 1, 2008




/s/
      Zou Dejun


Zou
      Dejun


Chief
      Executive Officer




/s/
      Bruce Richardson


Bruce
      Richardson


Chief
      Financial Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      RINO International Corporation and will be retained by RINO International
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-11026 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus BRENDA LEE FORD, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CR-016-A-1
- - - - - - - - - - August 1, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brenda Lee Ford appeals her conviction for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute. Her sole argument on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction and is limited to the conspiracy conviction. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Ford guilty beyond a reasonableNo. 95-11026 -2- doubt. United States v. Charroux , 3 F.3d 827, 830-31 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
### NUMBER 13

- 18

- 00 069

- CV


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCT ION COMPANY, A ppellants, L.P. ET AL. ,

v.
MICHAEL A. SHEPPARD, ET AL. , A ppellees

.

On appeal from the 24 th District Court of De Witt County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT
Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

Appellant s, Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., et al., attempt to appeal the
trial court’s December 28, 2017 order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Appellants have notified this Court that they believe the judgment is final and appealable2

but state that appellees
, Michael A. Sheppard, et al., have raised the finality issue in the

t rial court via a motion for determination of their attorneys’ fees and entry of final judgment.
To be final and appealable, a judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in

the case. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). It is unclear

from the record before the Court if all claims asserted by or against all parties have been
disposed. Under these circumstances, we may abate the appeal to permit clarification
by the trial court. Id. at 206; see T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 27.2, 44.3, 44.4.
Accordingly, we ABATE the appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court for
clarification. Upon remand, the trial court shall address whether it intended the judgment
to completely dispose of all claims and all parties. The trial court shall cause its finding s
and recommendations, together with any orders it may enter regarding the
aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental clerk's record. Furthermore,
the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record of any proceedings to be

pre pared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental reporter's record, if any,
shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the

date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 28th day of March, 2018

.
Exhibit 32.2

MF Global Ltd.

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MF Global Ltd. (together with its subsidiaries, the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Amy S. Butte, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 13, 2007/s/ Amy S. ButteAmy S. ButteChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 284

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage

penalty by increasing the standard deduction for married individuals

filing joint returns to twice the standard deduction for unmarried individuals.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1999

Mr. MCCAIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate

the marriage penalty by increasing the standard deduction for married individuals filing joint returns to twice

the standard deduction for unmarried individuals.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Marriage Penalty Elimination Act of 1999’’.

6 (b) ELIMINATION OF 1986 CODE.—Except as other7 wise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amend8 ment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment
2

•S 284 IS

1 to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference

2 shall be considered to be made to a section or other provi3 sion of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

4 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STAND5 ARD DEDUCTION.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 63(c) (relating to stand7 ard deduction) is amended by adding at the end the follow8 ing new paragraph:

9 ‘‘(7) ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY FOR

10 JOINT FILERS.—

11 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a joint

12 return or a surviving spouse (as defined in sec13 tion 2(a)), the basic standard deduction under

14 paragraph (2)(A) shall be increased by an

15 amount equal to the applicable percentage of

16 the excess of—

17 ‘‘(i) 200 percent of the basic standard

18 deduction in effect for the taxable year

19 under paragraph (2)(C), over

20 ‘‘(ii) the basic standard deduction in

21 effect for the taxable year under paragraph

22 (2)(A) (without regard to this paragraph).

23 ‘‘(B) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For

24 purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable

25 percentage shall be determined as follows:
3

•S 284 IS

‘‘For taxable years beginning

in calendar year:

The applicable percentage is:

1999 ......................................................................................... 20

2000 ......................................................................................... 40

2001 ......................................................................................... 60

2002 ......................................................................................... 80

2003 and thereafter ................................................................. 100.’’

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

2 63(c)(2)(A) is amended by inserting ‘‘except as provided

3 in paragraph (7),’’ before ‘‘$5,000’’.

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

5 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

6 December 31, 1998.

Æ