alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004084EN.01082301.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/823 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/823

---

(2004/C 84 E/0918)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Schedules of airlines from third countries

Subject:

Following the recent tragic crash of the Flash Airlines plane from Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt, the United Kingdom published a list of third countries airlines which are banned from using its airspace since they fail to comply with the international safety rules laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organization. One of the airlines blacklisted in this way is Albanian Airlines, which operates a flight three or four times a week between Athens and Tirana.

Will the Commission say:

| 1. | Why has the United Kingdom included Albanian Airlines on its blacklist? Have the services of a Member State to which this airline flies verified the reliability of this airline? If so, what are the findings? Have the competent authorities carried out a runway inspection, as provided for under the Chicago Convention? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why has the United Kingdom included Albanian Airlines on its blacklist? Have the services of a Member State to which this airline flies verified the reliability of this airline? If so, what are the findings? Have the competent authorities carried out a runway inspection, as provided for under the Chicago Convention?

| 2. | Are such inspections covered by the recent agreement between the European Parliament and the Council on a system of controls and verification of the safety of aircraft of third countries airlines using Community airports? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are such inspections covered by the recent agreement between the European Parliament and the Council on a system of controls and verification of the safety of aircraft of third countries airlines using Community airports?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

(6 April 2004)

At present there are no provisions obliging the Member States to give the Commission the information requested by the Honourable Member. The Commission is not therefore in possession of the information and would invite the Honourable Member to contact the competent national authorities directly. In contrast, as the Honourable Member will be able to confirm, the Directive mentioned below will give the Commission access to such information.

The Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council due to be adopted in April 2004 on third countries' aircraft calling at Community airports (1) provides scope for national authorities to check the conformity of third countries' aircraft with international safety standards. It also provides for an exchange of information on this subject between the Member States and the Commission, the possibility of grounding dangerous aircraft and a procedure whereby a decision by one Member State to ban an airline from using its airspace can be extended throughout the Community.

1

---

(1)  Not yet published.

1

---
#### Challoner and another, Appellants, vs. Boyington and another, Respondents.

*September 6*

September *26, 1895.*

*Sale of chattels: Acceptance of note of third person.*

Where, at the time of the acceptance of goods sold on trial, the vendor accepts the negotiable note of a third person for the price, the presumption is that such note is taken in payment.

*28Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Eond du Lac county: N. S. G-ilsoN, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*■*A full statement of the facts in this case will be found in 83 Wis. 399, except that since the former trial the answer has been amended by adding the allegation that “the plaintiffs accepted the negotiable notes of the Cypress Lumber Company in payment for such machinery.” There is no need for a new statement of facts. There was a trial by the court without a jury, and a finding and judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiffs appeal.

*M. C.*Phillips, attorney, and *Charles W.*Fellcer, of counsel, for the appellants.

For the respondents there was a brief by *Cate, Jones cb Scmborn,*and oral argument by *D. Lloyd Jones.*

NewmaN, J.

The trial court made no finding on the issue as to whether the machinery was sold to the defendants. It will not be unfair towards the plaintiffs to assume, for the purposes of this decision, that the sale was to the defendants. This assumption is in harmony with the allegations of their complaint. If their claim was against the defendants, then, by all the authorities, it was paid and extinguished by their acceptance of the negotiable notes of the Cypress Lumber Company. This is very clearly stated and shown in the former opinion. There is no need for a further discussion or citation of authorities.

*By the*Cowrt.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GERALD F. CAREY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D19-3753 and 4D19-3845

[January 5, 2022]

Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael A. Usan, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 

10-18726 CF10A and 16-13280 CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Mara C. Herbert, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allan R. Geesey, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Gerald F. Carey appeals his convictions and sentences for violation of 

probation and second-degree murder, and he raises two issues. We affirm 

with respect to the first issue without further discussion. 

In the second issue, Carey asserts that the trial court erred by entering 

a written order sentencing him to fifteen years for the violation of probation 

after announcing at the sentencing hearing that he would be sentenced to 

ten years, and by denying his motion to correct this sentencing error. 

Indeed, “a court’s oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the 

written document.” Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 2003). 

The state concedes error. 

Consequently, we reverse the sentence on the violation of probation and 

instruct that, on remand, the trial court shall enter a written order 

matching its oral pronouncement of ten years’ imprisonment at the 

sentencing hearing.
2

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-1843

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Curtis R. Brye, Jr., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 29, 2003 Filed: January 5, 2004

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Curtis R. Brye, Jr., pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and a related forfeiture count. The district court 1 sentenced him to 168 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release, and he appeals.-2- Mr. Brye argues that the government’s refusal to seek a substantial-assistance downward departure was irrational, arbitrary, and in bad faith; his guilty plea was involuntary, unknowing, and unintelligent because it was induced by the government’s promise to seek a departure; the sentence was cruel, unusual, and excessive; there was no real evidence to establish the drug quantity attributed to Mr. Brye; his criminal history was overstated; and the court failed to state its reasons for the sentence.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in refusing to compel the government to file a substantial-assistance departure motion as Mr. Brye has not shown the government’s refusal was unconstitutionally motivated or irrational. SeeWade v. United States , 504 U.S. 181, 186 (1992). We also conclude that the district court did not otherwise err in sentencing Mr. Brye: his involuntary-plea argument is not supported by the facts; his sentence was within the applicable Guidelines range, see United States v. Foote , 920 F.3d 1395, 1401 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied , 500 U.S. 946 (1991); the court’s drug-quantity determination was based on stipulations in the plea agreement, see United States v. Nguyen , 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995); and the criminal history calculation rested on unobjected-to convictions listed in the presentence report, see United States v. Beatty , 9 F.3d 686, 690 (8th Cir. 1993). Finally, even assuming the district court failed to state its reasons for the sentence, we conclude this omission was harmless as the record supports that the court considered the relevant factors in selecting a sentence at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 13.1
 
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
 CEO CERTIFICATION
 
 In connection with the annual report of Almaden Minerals Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Morgan Poliquin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
 
 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/”Morgan Poliquin”
 
 Name: Morgan Poliquin
 Title: Chief Executive Officer
 March 28, 2013
,; " 

RE~ ID:~2.6341B 

\-'~ ~ .~· Zf', 63 

.. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 08-06-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed November 30, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1837

Lower Tribunal No. F14-26627

________________

Osman Lopez,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa 

Tinkler Mendez, Judge.

Gennaro Cariglio Jr., for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and EMAS, and MILLER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

UPON MOTION TO REVIEW ORDER DENYING POST-TRIAL RELEASE
2

Appellant, Osman Lopez, seeks review of a lower court order denying 

his amended motion for post-trial release pending appeal. We have 

jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(h)(4). As the State properly 

concedes, the trial court erred in failing to render written findings supporting 

the denial of bail. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.691(b); Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(h)(3). 

Accordingly, we grant the motion for review and reverse and remand with 

instructions for the court to reconsider the amended motion within three days 

of the date of this opinion. In doing so, the court shall examine the factors 

enunciated in Younghans v State, 90 So. 2d 308, 310 (Fla. 1956), and, in 

the event post-trial release is again denied, reduce its reasons to writing. 

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          437863
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9423
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                447286
<PP&E>                                        30952097
<DEPRECIATION>                                30191924
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1207459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           170502
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1036957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1207459
<SALES>                                         494188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                494188
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 238356
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             238356
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    238356
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       5,793,000
<SECURITIES>                                13,527,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,875,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (553,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,050,000
<PP&E>                                      69,554,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (41,556,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,048,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,032,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,810,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,206,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,048,000
<SALES>                                     11,880,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,880,000
<CGS>                                       23,890,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,890,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               420,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,224,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,637,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,587,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,587,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.58)


</TABLE>
#### Ecklor, Administrator, Appellant, vs. Wolcott and another, Respondents.

*May 15*

June *19, 1902.*

*Executors and administrators: Avoiding fraudulent transfer Toy decedent.*

An administrator can attack an alleged fraudulent transfer of property liy his, intestate only under the provisions of sec. 3832, Stats. 3898; and under that section it must be made to appear that there is or will he a deficiency of asséts to pay creditors existing at the time of the transfer.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Pepin county: E. W. Helms, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Eor the appellant there were briefs by *O. M. Hilliard*and *O. A. Ingram,*and oral argument by *Mr. Hilliard.*

Eor the respondents there was a brief by W. *E. Plummer,*and oral argument by *8. G. Gilman.*

WiNslow, J.

This is an action in equity, brought by the plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of Josiah B. Loomis, deceased, intestate, for the purpose of setting aside a certain deed of real estate and certain transfers of personal property made by the deceased to his daughter, the defendant *Phoebe Wolcott,*shortly prior to his death, on the ground that the deceased was1 then mentally incompetent, and that said deed and transfers were made without consideration and under undue influence. The defendants answered, admitting the deed and transfers, and denying the remaining allegations *20of tbe complaint. Tbe case was tried, and tbe court made findings negativing’ tbe allegations of tbe complaint, and tbe court dismissed tbe action. No evidence was offered or received showing that there were’ any creditors of tbe estate, or that there was or would be. any deficiency of assets in tbe estate to meet all proper claims against it qf any nature. There is no right on the part óf tbe administrator to attack alleged fraudulent transfers of property made by bis intestate except under tbe provisions of sec. 3832, Stats. 1898. Under this section it must appear, in order to entitle the administrator to maintain it, that there i's or will be a deficiency of assets to pay’creditors existing at tbe time of tbe transfer. *Andrew v. Hinderman,*11 Wis. 148, 36 N. W. 624; *O'Malley v.*O'Malley, 102 Wis. 639, 18 N. W. 753. This consideration necessarily results in affirmance of tbe judgment, regardless of any question as1 to tbe correctness of tbe judgment upon tbe merits.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
TO: 

REF ID:A66035 

CG .l.1C WRIGHT l'Jl ·r1~M~U:N Xt'D orr10 

16 

211523 

s 22244 

ROUTINF 

00 x 

RESrR:CTEB 

(,)J,N ~.J J:JJ'lY 1907 G,f,;:,1, I·on CLN D •• YTOU Cl'M:~ OllIO 

I'11 WUULD BE ~J.- iRSGI11.T.C:D IF YOU GOULD FWD SO(!lflS'l' ... coi·Y uF THE 

.. ~·· 

II Fffi?fl'f'fHO 't':~D l 1 

60262 LT COLO.N.!E.L, USA t.Hll ~F SOD 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-15-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:2009-NM-124-AD.
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 Lattice, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul Burgess, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      May 11, 2009
                By:
                /s/
      Paul BurgessPaul
      Burgess
                  President
      (principal executive
officer)
• REF ID:A67314 

18 l'e'b l.955 

SUB.l'JlC!': Apml• tor t.be J'am'tb lia8'1Dg ot the BIU.to:r1al Pol1q Joul4 

23 Jleb l.955 

1. J't.artber NV'lew of 'the .1o'b 4eacr1ptf.cm tor the 1'41tor, "l1SA ~cal Jmam&l. ", h8IJ nmalter11D a detemlDatim tbat tbe Job deucrtp .. tlm q DOV vrltteD 1aCka the 9'reDgth nqu1re4 to elltabl18h ·~he .job as a 

GS-13· 

2. Hr. Meilman vill be abaeD for ft.ve neb. In tu ~et of 

proceaUJas to resolve this pl'Obla, . tbe Chief, !echllical. Lt'bn.ry Di:ria10ill, 

1mder 

~ 

vbo8Ct aAmtntatration tbe "!eclm1e&l Joumal", has 'bem :placecl.., ha.a 

• to aal,l. a aeetiDg flt tbe Bdl'torial !Oliq Bead. to be held 

~' 23 ~ 1955, at 1000 1a 'the Bta.tt Ccm:rererace Beem, 19-244. 

3. A :repl'91M11Dta.'ttft Gr tbe ClesaUicaUm SenS.m (BIS) w1ll be . 

preemt to adviae am usiat 8114, aub~, to ezpetit.ie esatabli~ 

cf the :poa1Uca. 

4. Acticm of 'the loa.rc1 at tbie meet1lag might pend:t 'the Job to be 

atherU.Bll4 1D tbe list ot 301» ~es echec1ulecl to &PJ861' cm 28 :feb 1955. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 05-29-2014 __ pursuantto E.O. 1352e
Exhibit24.4

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BYTHESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appointseach of Robert K. Kretzman and Michael T. Sheehan or either of them,each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, withfull power of substitution, for him and his name, place and stead, inany and all capacities, in connection with the REVLON, INC. (the"Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form10-K") under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation oron behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of theCorporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument,contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form10-K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibitsthereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including thispower of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and anyapplicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body,granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thingrequisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fullyto all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, herebyratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents,each acting alone, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do orcause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has signed these presents this 18th day ofFebruary, 2004.

|  | /s/ ALAN S. BERNIKOW |
|--|----------------------|

|  |
|--|
|  |  |  |
|  |

|  | ALAN S.BERNIKOW |
|--|-----------------|

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code
  (i)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the
periods indicated.
 Date:  May 9, 2008
    /s/ DANA M. KELLEYDana M. KelleyVice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer