alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
'fO,. 3EfP.ET FROTll 

rROM: CH NSAEUR 

TO: DiRNSA 

INF"O: USLO 

MSG NR: N .. 587 

Si:CYRf'f'T 1NF ORMATION 

PRIORITY 

PLB()---36/50 USC 3605 "-

EO 3. 3(h)J2) ~~: h62 

r6621 

1 

2 

~ 

~-8 

1¢ 

11=12 

OTG: 240<)45z MAR 54 

INFO: $/ASST 29)) ~%!~ C/S 

PROO 

AG 

ocs ~ ~ . 

~1 Jt-19 

ADV COPY SENT NSS 

READ USLO 2¢141 ¢Z. SUBJ ¥ S Sf.ME AS REFERENCED MY 16141 ¢Z 

. (NOTAL). PRELUM INTERR(X;ATION REPORT REVIEW£D HERE INDICATES 

NSA INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED AS NOTED IN USLO MSG 

P~US POSSiBILiTV OF ACQUIRING iNF'O REF 

_____ __, VIEWPOINTS RATHER THAN FROM A CRYPTANAL'fllCAl 

VIEWPOINT. IN VIEW or ABOVE REF' INFO ANO INTERROGATION:Of' - os~58¢ HAVING BEEN COMPLETED LT KOCHEN PLANS OEPARTF'OR ZI 

25 MARCH 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

NSA 115 NOYE: OTG 2~1~1¢Z IS AGI ¢3729 16141¢Z IS AGt ¢3492 

DATE RECD: ?.41148z MAR 54 TOP SECRET CONTROL !154~1=~78 

HWS/AML COPY 1--07~or~f: COPIES 

PAGE 1 Of' . 1 PAGE 

NSA Form 781-ClOS l Jul 52 

P.ARAPHRASE NOT REQUIRED 

CONSHJlTfCRYPfOCENTER BEFORE DECLASSIFYING 

rep SE€RE'F FR()TII 

SSCtJ:fH'fT IMJ.i'ORMA I ION 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-13-2013 pursuant to E .0. 1352a
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00424-CR

MARIO HERNANDEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1513167D)

July 1, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s judgment. The trial court’s judgment is modified (1) to 

delete and replace “1/17/2019” as the “Date Sentence Imposed” with “11/11/2019” 

and (2) to add “Not Guilty” as the “Plea to the Offense.” It is ordered that the trial 

court’s judgment is affirmed as modified.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
# C_2015098EN.01000201.xml

| 25.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7531 — Wendel/Constantia Flexibles)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 98/02)

On 13 March 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7531. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7531. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ASHOT AVOYAN, 

Petitioner,

 v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71834

Agency No. A071-069-916

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2020** 

Before: GRABER, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Ashot Avoyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, seeks review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

JUL 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Yeghiazaryan v. Gonzales,

439 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Avoyan’s second, untimely

motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where he failed to qualify for an

exception to the time and number limitations, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). A motion

to reopen may be filed any time for purposes of seeking asylum, withholding of

removal, or CAT relief because of changed country conditions, if supported by

evidence that is “material and was not available and could not have been

discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” Id.; see Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d

604, 607–09 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Avoyan’s evidence did not satisfy this requirement, where it did not

establish material, changed circumstances in Armenia since Avoyan’s final hearing

on August 29, 2011. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016)

(“[T]he changed country conditions exception is concerned with two points in

time: the circumstances of the country at the time of the petitioner’s previous

hearing, and those at the time of the motion to reopen.”). Therefore, the BIA did

not err in denying Avoyan’s motion on this basis. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597

F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding denial of untimely motion to reopen

2
where evidence showed a continuation of country conditions that were present at

the time of the removal hearing).

The record does not support Avoyan’s argument that the BIA made an

implicit finding that Avoyan’s and his brother’s declarations were not credible. 

The BIA properly took the assertions in both declarations into account when it held

that the evidence did not show a material change in conditions. We also reject the

assertion that the BIA failed to apply the appropriate legal standard or consider all

relevant issues in its decision. Because Avoyan did not demonstrate changed

country conditions, as required to qualify for the timely filing exception under §

1003.2(c)(3)(ii), it was unnecessary for the BIA to consider whether Avoyan

established prima facie eligibility for his underlying claims. See INS v. Doherty,

502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3
# C_2014455EN.01000101.xml

| 18.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7405 — Yanfeng/JCI Interiors Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 455/01)

On 11 December 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7405. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7405. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1046

CHIGOZIE M. ENOCH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ADVANCED BIOSCIENCE LABORATORIES, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. James K. Bredar, District Judge. 

(8:12-cv-03701-JKB)

Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chigozie M. Enoch, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Rigatuso, 

John S. Vander Woude, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chigozie M. Enoch appeals the district court’s order 

granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in his civil 

action alleging retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, as amended. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Enoch v. Advanced Bioscience 

Labs., Inc., No. 8:12-cv-03701-JKB (D. Md. Jan. 10, 2014). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2014461EN.01002101.xml

| 20.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 461/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 461/21

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 December 2014

(2014/C 461/13)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2279 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 146,41 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4391 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78470 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4624 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2039 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0145 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,636 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 316,45 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,45280 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2738 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4738 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8552 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5012 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4239 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5233 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5789 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6147 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 349,92 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2467 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6400 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6660 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 254,85 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2668 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,937 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 73,4223 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,361 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2525 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,8389 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,7322 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2279

JPY

Japanese yen

146,41

DKK

Danish krone

7,4391

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78470

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4624

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2039

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0145

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,636

HUF

Hungarian forint

316,45

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,45280

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2738

RON

Romanian leu

4,4738

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8552

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5012

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4239

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5233

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5789

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6147

KRW

South Korean won

1 349,92

ZAR

South African rand

14,2467

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6400

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6660

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 254,85

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2668

PHP

Philippine peso

54,937

RUB

Russian rouble

73,4223

THB

Thai baht

40,361

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2525

MXN

Mexican peso

17,8389

INR

Indian rupee

77,7322

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<PAGE>   1














                                   EXHIBIT 21

















<PAGE>   2



                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 State of                  Percentage
                                               Incorporation               Ownership
                                               -------------               ---------
<S>                                               <C>                         <C>
Pinnacle Bank (1)                                 Alabama                     100%

First General Service(s) Corporation (2)          Alabama                     100%

First General Ventures Corporation (2)            Alabama                     100%

Affiliate
---------
First General Lending Corporation
   (accounted for on the cost method) (2)         Alabama                      40%
</TABLE>

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

(1)  Subsidiary of the Registrant.
(2)  Subsidiary of Pinnacle Bank
AAM-12-167-E April 5, 2012

Exemption No. 10495 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0257

Mr. Bruce Armand Coulombe Wings Over Kauai, LLC

3764 Kikee Road Kalaheo, HI 96741

Dear Mr. Coulombe:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 8, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Wings Over Kauai, LLC (WOK) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Codeof Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow WOK to cover its safetysensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to WOK.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was2

unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two drug and alcohol separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Wings Over Kauai, LLC an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow WOK to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of WOK are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of the WOK part 135 operation, not under part 91

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-23-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-24-1998
<CASH>                                           2,741
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,977
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                        626
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,710
<PP&E>                                          13,173
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,025
<BONDS>                                             60
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,011
<OTHER-SE>                                    (21,706)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,390
<SALES>                                          1,382
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,446
<CGS>                                              854
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,907
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (977)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        12
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (989)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (989)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
#### McHose, Adm’r, and another vs. Cain, impleaded, etc.

Witness: *“Assignor of a thing in action:” Sec.*51, *ch.*137, *R. S.*

One who transfers a promissory note or hill hy indorsement or delivery, is not an “assignor of a thing in action,” within the meaning of sec. 51, ch. 137, R. S., so as to be excluded from testifying in the case there named.

APPEAL from the County Court for *Milwaukee*County.

Action by the executor and executrix of Pinney Youngs, deceased, to recover the amount of two promissory notes, purporting to have been made April 18, 1869, by “ Lee & Cain,” payable to their order, and by them indorsed. The complaint avers that Lee and Cain were partners in April, 1859, and that the notes were by them made and indorsed, *487and were then for value delivered to Pinney Youngs & Co., and "by said firm, for value, transferred to plaintiff’s intestate, etc. *Cain*answered by a general denial. The firm of Pinney Youngs & Co. consisted of said intestate and one Smith; and plaintiffs having called Smith as a witness, offered to prove by him the co-partnership of the defendants at the time of the making of the notes, and the transactions and conversations between witness and defendants at that time in reference to said notes. The evidence was rejected, and judgment rendered in favor of *Cain;*from which the plaintiffs appealed.

*Palmer £ Hooker,*for appellant.

*H. Mariner,*for respondent.

Dixon, C. J.

This case is ruled by that of *McConnell v. McCraken, Adm’r, et al.,*14 Wis., 83. ¥e there held that the term “ assignor of a thing in action,” in sec. 51, ch. 137, R. S., does not include a person who transfers a promissory note or bill by indorsement or delivery. The witness Smith was therefore competent to give evidence as to the matters proposed to be proved by him. If there is hardship (as no one will deny) in permitting him to testify to conversations and transactions between himself and the defendant *Cain,*when *Cain*is peremptorily excluded, that is a matter which addresses itself to the discretion of the legislature, and not to the courts. "We must administer the law as we find it, and have no dispensing power over statutes because they establish seemingly harsh or unjust rules. See *Wright v. Hardy, ante,*p. 348.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and a new trial awarded.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


BDO  DUNWOODY  LLP                        600  Park  Place
Chartered  Accountants                    666  Burrard  Street
and  Consultants                          Vancouver,  BC  V6C  2X8
                                          Telephone: (604)  688-5421
                                          Facsimile  (604)  688-5132


April  26,  2002

TURBODYNE  TECHNOLOGIES,  INC.
6155  Carpinteria  Avenue,
Carpinteria,  California
93013

Attention:  Mr.  Daniel  Black,  President

Re:     TURBODYNE  TECHNOLOGIES,  INC.
        -  Registration  Statement  on  Form  S-8

Gentlemen:

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We  consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 30, 2002
relating  to  the consolidated balance sheet of Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. and
subsidiaries  as at December 31, 2001 and the related consolidated statements of
operations,  shareholders'  equity (deficiency) and cash flows for the year then
ended  in the registration statement on Form S-8 of Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.
filed  with  the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2000 (SEC File
No.  333-43852).

Very  truly  yours,

/s/ BDO  DUNWOODY  LLP

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
Exhibit 13.2


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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Orckit Communications Ltd. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Uri Shalom, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, 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, as amended; and
 
 (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 June 29, 2011
  By:

/s/ Uri ShalomUri Shalom, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
      32.2





**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**





**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 (the "Report") of China Biopharmaceuticals
      Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
      30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I, HUANG Chentai, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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; 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
                14, 2006
              By:
              /s/ HUANG
                ChentaiHUANG
                  Chentai
                Chief
                  Financial Officer