alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004084EN.01024301.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/243 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/243

---

(2004/C 84 E/0288)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3499/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Romano Prodi — Manifesto

Subject:

The President of the Commission has written a text entitled ‘Europa: il sogno, le scelte’ explicitly directed to the Italian centre-left parties, calling on them to unite in a single list for the forthcoming European elections and act unitedly in the ensuing Parliament.

This initiative produced an immediate reaction from the Italian opposition parties, and comprehensive criticism from the parties comprising the government majority, having already been repudiated by representatives of European political groups. Italian political commentators have even stated that the Commission President was positioning himself as the possible leader of the left in Italy, with a view to the elections next June.

The Council:

| — | How does it view the initiative taken by the Commission President? Does it believe it to be compatible with the nature of his duties, as set out in Article 211 et seq. of the EC Treaty? Does it think that Romano Prodi's behaviour compromises the impartiality of the Commission's political guidelines and interventions, which are legally the responsibility of its President, and undermines the proper application of the principles of separation of powers, independence, and general interest of the Community? |
| --- | --- |

—

How does it view the initiative taken by the Commission President? Does it believe it to be compatible with the nature of his duties, as set out in Article 211 et seq. of the EC Treaty? Does it think that Romano Prodi's behaviour compromises the impartiality of the Commission's political guidelines and interventions, which are legally the responsibility of its President, and undermines the proper application of the principles of separation of powers, independence, and general interest of the Community?

| — | Does it not believe that the stability and respectability of the European Institutions has been directly jeopardised? Does it intend to do anything about this, and with regard to the Commission President, whose actions can quite simply be viewed as constituting ‘intervention in the internal politics’ of a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it not believe that the stability and respectability of the European Institutions has been directly jeopardised? Does it intend to do anything about this, and with regard to the Commission President, whose actions can quite simply be viewed as constituting ‘intervention in the internal politics’ of a Member State?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

(9 March 2004)

The Council has not discussed the issues raised in the Honourable Member's question, nor has it expressed any view on them. It is not therefore in a position to respond to the Honourable Member.

---
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1672 

To authorize States to enter into interstate compacts regarding Class A 

commercial driver’s licenses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2015 

Mrs. FISCHER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize States to enter into interstate compacts 

regarding Class A commercial driver’s licenses. 

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. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commercial Driver 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INTERSTATE COMPACT TEST PROGRAM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the Federal 

8 Motor Carrier Safety Administration shall establish a test 

9 program to allow States and the District of Columbia to 

10 enter into interstate compacts with contiguous States to 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1672 IS

1 standardize the requirements for drivers operating com2 mercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce. 

3 (b) MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF LICENSES.—A com4 mercial driver’s licenses issued by 1 State participating in 

5 an interstate compact under subsection (a) shall be recog6 nized as valid in every State that is participating in such 

7 compact. 

8 (c) STANDARDS.—In developing an interstate com9 pact under this section, participating States shall provide 

10 for minimum licensure standards acceptable for interstate 

11 travel under this section, which may include, for drivers 

12 under the 21 years of age— 

13 (1) age restrictions; 

14 (2) distance from origin (measured in air 

15 miles); 

16 (3) reporting requirements; or 

17 (4) additional hours of service restrictions. 

18 SEC. 3. APPROVAL. 

19 An interstate compact described in section 2 may not 

20 go into effect until it has been approved by the governor 

21 of each State (or the Mayor of the District of Columbia, 

22 if applicable) that is a party to the agreement, after con23 sultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the Ad24 ministrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Adminis25 tration. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1672 IS

1 SEC. 4. SAVINGS PROVISION. 

2 Nothing in this Act may be construed to limit, or oth3 erwise change, the authority to operate in Interstate Com4 merce for drivers over the age of 21, including by setting 

5 the minimum age requirement to receive a Class A com6 mercial driver’s license at 18 years of age. 

Æ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 24, 2009

p0217 

# Order

February 24, 2009

137209 & (20)(21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137209 COA: 285455 Genesee CC: 00-006041-FC JODY LYNN WELLS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the July 25, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to remand for DNA testing and the motion for appointment of counsel are

DENIED.
J

- S15008

- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. MANUEL ORTIZ Appellant No. 1516 MDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order August 11 , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 36

- CR

- 0003548

- 1994

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., WECHT, J., and JENKINS, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 29, 2015 Manuel Ortiz appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County denying his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541

- 9546. Because this Court doe s not have jurisdiction to review Ortiz’s petition, we affirm the PCRA court’s order. On July 10, 1995, Ortiz was convicted of second

- degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Ortiz’s judgment of sentence. Thereafter, Ortiz filed PCRA petitions in 1997, 2001, 2006 and 2010, all of which the PCRA court denied. On August 20, 2012, following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama , 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), Ortiz filed a fifth PCRA petition. The Court in Miller held that “the Eighth AmendmentJ

- S15008

- 15

- 2

-

forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.” Id . at 2469. The PCRA court denied Ortiz’ fifth petitio n, concluding that it was untimely filed under the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Cunningham , 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013) (holding constitutional right announced in Miller v. Alabama is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral appeal). 1 See also Com. v. C ristina , --- A.3d

---- , 2015 WL 1730538 (Pa. Super.), 2015 PA Super 74. Consequently, Ortiz cannot rely upon Miller or subsection 9545(b)(iii) to establish jurisdiction over his untimely PCRA petition in any Pennsylvania court. We are bound by Cunningham . Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to review Ortiz’s petition. See Commonwealth v. Chester , 895 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. 2006) (“The PCRA's time restrictions are jurisdictional in nature. Thus, [i]f a PCRA petition is untimely, neither this Court nor the trial court has jurisdiction over the petition. Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claims.”).

__________________________ __________________ 1 The United States Supreme Court has since denied certiorari in Cunningham

. See Cunningham v. Pennsylvania , 134 S.Ct. 2724 (U.S. 2014). However, on March 23, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Montgomery v. Louisiana , ––– U.S.

–––– , 2015 WL 1280236 (2015), which again presents the Miller retroactivity question. Nonetheless, until the United States Supreme Court issues its decision, we are bound by Cunningham

.J

- S15008

- 15

- 3

-

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 4/29/2015
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate, Rome, New York.

# ACTION:

Notice of Intent to Issue an Exclusive Patent License.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the provisions of part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended, the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Lilo, LLC, a corporation of New York, having a place of business at 106 Genesee St., Utica, New York 13413, an exclusive license in any right, title and interest the United States Air Force has in: In U.S. Patent No. 8,317,058 entitled “Bicyclists' Water Bottle with Bottom Drinking Valve”, issued on November 27th, 2012, U.S. Design Patent No. D588,856 issued on March 24th, 2009, and U.S. Design Patent D583,626 issued on December 20th, 2008.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

An exclusive license for this patent will be granted unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Written objections should be sent to: Air Force Research Laboratory, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, AFRL/RIJ, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, New York 13441-4514. Telephone: (315) 330-2087; Facsimile (315) 330-7583.

Henry Williams,

Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2015-04028 Filed 2-25-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Jay A. Herman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Delphax Technologies Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Delphax Technologies Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures 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 reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls overfinancial reporting.     Dated: February 10, 2006 By:            /s/ Jay A. Herman              Jay A. Herman              Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
THE Amw~ GENEOF TEXAS 

### CaxelJdC.

itnu .. Au- XI.- *-RN- 0-a / * 

## rustin, Axh8 i%nr Sir: yw..^ .

,.. ..- ‘

.issnsi itall b8 

### s8w~thatthelb4Al

s8w~thatthe tha neu 

### *ctiela 297th /nclndw both war8I ami

*ctiela /nclndw uulus its 

### apj+Ilcatloa be 1: 

### tfoas, 

### apj+Ilcatloa Ip;f izsELs- +eaeral&3tloasi tu? W.&t8 8mptSea t0
~ T •• _~ 

REF ID:A59328 e 

T<hnSECRET 

USCIB: 13.5/$8 M'fl'.m1'm '.DOCtJMl!NT CONTAINS 

CQTMQim M.'.TJ!:IUAh 

8 November 1954 

!OP SE6fl:E'f - 1:1. B. E'!EB eMLY 

¥.iEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Compromises of COMINT Information. 

Reference: CIBD #9 (Revised) dated 4 February 1954. 

The enclosed summary of two hitherto unreported compromises 

of COM.INT information due to ineffective communications security 

is circulated for information. This brings the total of this type 

compromise reported since May 1953 to 82. 

Enclosure 

a/s 

USCIB: 13.5/88 

USCIB 

M!PiN:em1 BOSB!mN':E' OON'f'AINS 

SQ:Qijti.FQRB H:ATI:liRL't±. 

TOP SECRET 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 02-10-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 
.. 'f6• SE€fm11t> =rtt1tr11 

COMPROMISES OJP COMINT INFORMATION 

A. On 25 June 1954, a communications security violation occurred 

at the 691oth Security Group, Landsberg, Germany. On that date, a 

portion of a SECRET CODEWORD message was inadvertently transmitted in 

mono-alphabetic substitution cipher to the u. s. Air Force Security 

Service, Son Antonio, Texas. Since the circuit, composed of radio and 

wire links is vulnerable to interception, and since mono-alphabetic 

substitution cipher is vulnerable to successful cryptanalytic attack, 

the relevant transmission must be considered compromised. The sub ec t 

viola.tion, consisting of 

B. On 23 July 1954, e. communications security violation occurred 

at the 6961st Communications Squadron, Son Antonio, Texas. on that 

date, a portion of a TOP SECRET CODEWORD messo.6e was transmitted in 

mono-alphabetic substitution cipher to the Air Defense Command, Ent AFB, 

Colorado. Since the carrier over which the violation.Occurred is a 

leased wire teletype circuit, and since mono-alphabetic substitution is 

vulnerable to successful cryptanalytic attack, the relevant transmission 

must be considered compromised. 'l'h.e subject violation disclosed the 

following CO.MINT inforI11.::Ltion: 

EO 3.3(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

reri ~Eett1~'f emrmot ~;~.:~tt 24-2508 

COPY 83 Qii' __ 6_L COPIJ.'.;S 

T0P SE€Ji1JT\Fk0Tff
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 5, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 09 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 1- cr-0 00 19 -MC R-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us ROGER RAY PRIC E, D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 5, 2 01 2) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es PER CURI AM: Ch etKauf

m an , app oi nt edco un se l fo r Ro ge r Ray Price in th is di rect cri m in al ap pe al , has m ov edto withd raw fro m fur th er re pr es en ta ti on of t he ap pe ll an t an d fi le d abri ef p ur su an t t o And er s v. C al if or ni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct
.13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s

th atco un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o a rg uabl e is su es of m eri t,
co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andPri ce’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e
are AFFIRMED
.

2
# C_2005115EN.01004201.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/42

---

(2005/C 115/78)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

Past publications

OJ C 93, 16.4.2005

OJ C 82, 2.4.2005

OJ C 69, 19.3.2005

OJ C 57, 5.3.2005

OJ C 45, 19.2.2005

OJ C 31, 5.2.2005

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

| | CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex |
| --- | --- |

CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEVEN JOSEPH PEAVEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3958

[September 9, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Charles A. Schwab, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562018CF003468A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Celia Terenzio, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Steven Peavey appeals his judgment and sentence following 

a plea. We affirm the judgment and sentence but remand for correction of 

the written sentencing orders to conform with the trial court’s oral 

pronouncement.

Appellant entered an open plea to burglary of a conveyance (count one) 

and grand theft (count two). The trial court orally sentenced him to three 

years in prison on count one and five years of probation on count two, with 

the probation to be served consecutively to the sentence on count one. 

However, the court entered a written sentencing order incorrectly reflecting 

that it imposed a split sentence and a written probation order incorrectly 

reflecting that it imposed prison time to be served during the term of 

probation.

On remand, the trial court shall amend the written orders to reflect that 

it did not impose a split sentence or prison time to be served during the 

term of probation. See Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2007)
2

(recognizing that the court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence controls 

over an inconsistent written sentencing document); Raya v. State, 183 So. 

3d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (affirming the convictions and sentences in 

an Anders appeal but remanding for correction of a scrivener’s error in the 

written sentencing order). Appellant need not be present for this 

ministerial action.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

GROSS, CIKLIN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# CE2004078EN.01031802.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/318 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/318

---

(2004/C 78 E/0321)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3768/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Macerata municipality

Subject:

In response to my previous question(E-1066/03 (1) asking whether the Macerata municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Macerata had not applied for such funding.

1

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

1

---