alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2015058EN.01003901.xml

| 3.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 58/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 58/39

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/324

of 2 March 2015

implementing Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 of 10 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic (1), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 10 March 2014, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 224/2014. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 10 March 2014, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 224/2014.

| (2) | On 31 December 2014, the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2127 (2013) concerning Central African Republic, deleted one person from the list of persons subject to the measures imposed by paragraphs 30 and 32 of UNSC Resolution 2134 (2014). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 31 December 2014, the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2127 (2013) concerning Central African Republic, deleted one person from the list of persons subject to the measures imposed by paragraphs 30 and 32 of UNSC Resolution 2134 (2014).

| (3) | The list of persons subject to restrictive measures set out in the Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The list of persons subject to restrictive measures set out in the Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 March 2015.

For the Council

The President

D. REIZNIECE-OZOLA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 70, 11.3.2014, p. 1.

1

---

ANNEX

The entry in ANNEX I to Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 for the following person is deleted:

Levy YAKETE

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001003390
<NAME>                        FIRST SOUTH AFRICA CORP., LTD.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                           20,994,991
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    20,303,100
<ALLOWANCES>                        878,107
<INVENTORY>                      13,752,413
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 55,735,225
<PP&E>                           36,171,324
<DEPRECIATION>                   13,395,967
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  101,958,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            24,877,304
<BONDS>                          25,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             71,222
<OTHER-SE>                       26,713,755
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    101,958,185
<SALES>                          28,218,692
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 28,218,692
<CGS>                            16,536,884
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    26,269,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   (370,949)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  163,901
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   2,156,013
<INCOME-TAX>                        688,855
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               1,467,158
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        917,715
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.13
        



</TABLE>
No. 82-5955.

#### Barker *v.*Marine Transportation Lines, Inc., et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

646 

CAF 12-01975 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF PAULINE KEICHER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DONALD SCHEIFLA, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

EVELYNE A. O’SULLIVAN, EAST AMHERST, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

BERNADETTE M. HOPPE, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Rosalie

Bailey, J.), entered October 1, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 8. The order dismissed the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner brought a petition in March 2012 pursuant

to Family Court Act article 8 alleging that respondent committed

various family offenses. Family Court granted respondent’s motion to

dismiss the petition, without prejudice, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)

(7). We affirm. The court determined that, because the petition

failed to specify when the alleged incidents occurred, the court was

unable to ascertain whether the allegations were the subject of a

December 2011 hearing following which the court dismissed the petition

for failure to prove the allegations by a preponderance of the

evidence. Any allegations concerning events that were the subject of

the 2011 hearing were barred by collateral estoppel (see Maybaum v

Maybaum, 89 AD3d 692, 695), and thus the petition would have been

properly dismissed to that extent. We are unable to review the

propriety of the court’s decision, however, because petitioner failed

to include in the record on appeal either the petition that was the

subject of the 2011 hearing or the transcript of that hearing. 

Petitioner, “as the appellant, submitted this appeal on an incomplete

record and must suffer the consequences” (Matter of Santoshia L., 202

AD2d 1027, 1028).

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


            INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REVIEW REPORT; ERNST & YOUNG LLP


The Board of Directors
Autologic Information International, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Autologic Information International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of April 30, 1999,
and the related condensed consolidated statements of operations for the
three-month and six-month periods ended April 30, 1999 and May 1, 1998, the
condensed consolidated statement of stockholders' equity for the six-month
period ended April 30, 1999, and the condensed consolidated statements of cash
flows for the six-month periods ended April 30, 1999 and May 1, 1998. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which will be performed
for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements referred
to above for them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Autologic Information
International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of October 30, 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
the year then ended, not presented herein; and in our report dated December 9,
1998, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial
statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying
condensed consolidated balance sheet as of October 30, 1998, is fairly stated,
in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from
which it has been derived.



June 1, 1999
Woodland Hills, California
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         662,797
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               662,657
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,923,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           96,062
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,379,540
<OTHER-SE>                                 (19,552,228)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,923,374
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,583
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,583
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,583
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,583
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 4, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-11140

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MAURICE TYRONE THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CR-41-1-D

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maurice Tyrone Thomas appeals from his jury-verdict

conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the district

court improperly permitted testimony from a lay witness to

establish the interstate nexus element of his crime. Examination

of the record indicates that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in admitting such testimony on this basis. See United

States v. Merritt, 882 F.2d 916, 919-20 (5th Cir. 1989).
No. 02-11140

-2-

Thomas argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to

support his conviction because the mere movement of a firearm

from one state to another does not constitute a “substantial”

effect on interstate commerce; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is

unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it does not

require a “substantial” effect on interstate commerce; and

(3) his indictment was fatally defective because it did not

allege that he knew that the firearm he possessed was in or

affecting interstate commerce. Thomas raises these arguments

solely to preserve them for possible Supreme Court review. As he

acknowledges, his arguments are foreclosed by existing Fifth

Circuit precedent. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513,

518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1150 (2002); United

States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir. 1988).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActClosed Requests

# Closed Appeal & FOIA/PA Cases by Subject - FY1999

Updated on 10/4/99

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryWithholding of Sensitive Information

# Contact Us About the Withholding of Sensitive Information

For answers to many frequently asked questions, see Withholding of Sensitive Information. After reviewing this information, you may send us a comment or question using this form.

If you need to report a safety concern, please do not use this page. Instead, please see Report a Safety or Security Concern.

Would you like to remain anonymous?:*

YesNo

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 9, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Nuclear Power Reactors
          - Nuclear Materials and Other Uses
          - Contact Us

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 9, 2020
ARDARIUS HARRIS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 4001

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 11, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

.

Ardarius Harris, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attor ney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C.J., WINOKUR and M.K. THOMAS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 20667 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

–

Appellee ,

v.
MISAEL RAMIREZ , Defendant

– Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CR

- 677

- 1

Before HIGGI NBOTHAM , JONES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Misael Ramirez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Ramirez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
rele vant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 15, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-20667 Document: 00515158924 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2019No. 18

- 20667

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsi bilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-20667 Document: 00515158924 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2019
EXHIBIT 10.10


                              AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
                                       TO
                      MR3 TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION AGREEMENT


         The Technology Acquisition Agreement ("Agreement") executed the 10th
day of April, 2002 ("Effective Date"), by and between Linsa Associates, Ltd.,
and MR3 Systems, Inc., is hereby amended, to redefine "Restricted Areas" under
Section 1.3 of the Agreement as set forth on the attached amended Exhibit B.

         WHEREAS, the parties have executed this Amendment Number Two in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, as of February 26,
2004.


LINSA ASSOCIATES, LTD.                      MR3 SYSTEMS, INC.

By: /s/ FRANCESCO CASTELLAZZI               By: /s/ RANDALL S. REIS
    ------------------------------              --------------------------------
    Francesco Castellazzi                       Randall S. Reis, Chairman
    Title:  Director
    Date: 17-3-2004


By: /s/ RENE SIGRISO
    ------------------------------
    Rene Sigriso
    Title: Director
    Date: 17-3-2004



LINSA LTD

By: /s/ SEBASTIAN VOGELI                This Amendment number 2 and Exhibit B
    ------------------------------      form an integral part of the Acquisition
    Sebastian Vogeli                    Agreement dated 10-04-02, which has been
    Title: Director                     assigned on 20-06-02 from Linsa
    Date: 26-3-200                      Associates Ltd. to Linsa Limited.


By: /s/ FRANCESCO CASTELLAZZI
    ------------------------------
    Francesco Castellazzi
    Title: Director
    Date: 26-3-2004
<PAGE>

                                    EXHIBIT B

1.       Restricted Areas are defined as the following countries, each a
         Restricted Area:

         (a)      Taiwan

         (b)      Egypt

         (c)      Also includes any transactions done outside of a Restricted
                  Area with subsidiaries or affiliates of companies
                  headquartered within a Restricted Area, provided that LINSA is
                  transacting business with such companies within the Restricted
                  Area at the time of any such outside transaction.

2.       LINSA shall have the right to operate under this Agreement outside of
         the Restricted Areas, on a worldwide non-exclusive basis. LINSA shall
         receive prior written confirmation from MR3 acknowledging a client as
         LINSA's bona fide new prospect and MR3 agrees to protect LINSA and not
         to circumvent LINSA to deal directly with any such prospect, without
         LINSA's prior written consent.

3.       No transaction under Section 2 of this Exhibit B shall be structured as
         a technology transfer transaction without the prior written consent of
         MR3.


                                        2
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,225,880
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149,439
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,375,319
<PP&E>                                          38,883
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,417,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,748
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         39
<COMMON>                                         7,226
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,417,335
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               227,008
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               765,710
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,669
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (496,033)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (496,033)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
        

</TABLE>