alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016344EN.01001101.xml

| 20.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/11

---

Corrigendum to calls for proposals under the work programme for grants in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020

(Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 1225 as amended by C(2016) 5768)

(This text annuls and replaces the text published in
  Official Journal C 336 of 13 September 2016, p. 4
  )

Official Journal C 336 of 13 September 2016, p. 4

(2016/C 344/14)

The European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, is hereby launching four calls for proposals in order to award grants to projects in accordance with the priorities and objectives defined in the 2016 work programme in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020.

Proposals are invited for the following four calls:

| | CEF-TC-2016-3: Automated Translation |
| --- | --- |

CEF-TC-2016-3: Automated Translation

| | CEF-TC-2016-3: Cyber Security |
| --- | --- |

CEF-TC-2016-3: Cyber Security

| | CEF-TC-2016-3: eInvoicing |
| --- | --- |

CEF-TC-2016-3: eInvoicing

| | CEF-TC-2016-3: Europeana |
| --- | --- |

CEF-TC-2016-3: Europeana

The total indicative budget available for proposals selected under these calls is EUR 27,5 million.

The deadline for the submission of proposals is 15 December 2016.

15 December 2016

The respective calls documentation is available on the CEF Telecom website: https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-telecom/apply-funding/2016-cef-telecom-calls-proposals

---
#### Jackson, *ex dem.*Burnett, v. Keller.

•Wherethere sufts depend-thf sameTM are’included together on the aarae jp one affidavit and notice of a motion, only one bill of costs is allowed to be taxed, on the motion being granted.

THERE *were.fourteen*causes at the suit of the same les» sor of the plaintiff. A motion had been made, grounded on an affidavit and notice, in which the titles of all the causes were included together. A question Was now raised whether *311the plaintiff’s attorney, his motion having aould have costs taxed in each of the causes. been granted,

*Throop,*for the plaintiff.

*Sill,*contra.

*Per Curiam.*

Where there are several causes depending, which are included together, on the same paper, in one affidavit and notice, there can be but one bill of costs. Here are fourteen causes, all entitled in one affidavit 5 and the party is never allowed to make out and have taxed, a separate bill of costs in each cause.
EXHIBIT 21

Deltic Timber Corporation

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

As of December 31, 2005



|                                      |  |                       
|------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Subsidiaries                          |  | State of Incorporation
|Deltic Timber Purchasers, Inc.        |  | Arkansas              
|                                      | 
|Deltic Southwest Timber Company       |  | Arkansas              
|                                      | 
|Deltic Real Estate Investment Company |  | Delaware              
|                                      | 
|Chenal Properties, Inc.               |  | Arkansas              
|                                      | 
|Chenal Country Club, Inc.             |  | Arkansas
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

,

v.

JESUS ALBERTO GERARDO

,

Appellee. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 3

- 00 142

- CR

Appeal from the

384 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120D03572 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is the State’s motion to stay proceedings in The State of Texas v.

Jesus Alberto Gerardo , cause number 20120D03572, which is pending in the 384th District Court.

The State’s motion is GRANTED. The trial court is directed to stay all proceedings in this case

pending further order of this Court or resolution of the appeal.

IT IS SO ORDE RED this 28th day of June , 201 3

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it



## ____________ No. 04-2386 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee, v. JACINTA A. THOMAS, a/k/a JACINTA A. CRASTOUN

Defendant, Appellant

__________________ ERRATA The opinion of this court, issued October 27, 2007, should be amended as follows: On page 15, line 18, replace "protected" with "protracted."
Exhibit
23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

To the Board of DirectorsCPI
Aerostructures, Inc.

We hereby consent to
incorporation by reference in Registration Numbers 333-11669, 333-42403
and 333-130077 on Form S-8 and Registration Numbers 333-08391 and
333-08216 on Form S-3 of our report dated January  30,
2004 on the statements of income, shareholders’ equity, and cash
flows of CPI Aerostructures, Inc. for the year ended December
31,  2003, which appear in the December  31,  2005
Annual Report on Form 10-K of CPI Aerostructures,
Inc.

/s/ Goldstein Golub Kessler
LLP
GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New
York

March 30,
2006

---
New London District Court

No. 84-287

#### The State of New Hampshire v. Kurt Jacobson

December 31, 1984

*Gregory H. Smith,*attorney general *(Robert B. Muh,*attorney, on the brief), by brief for the State.

*Joanne S. Green,*assistant appellate defender, of Concord, by brief for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

The New London District Court *(McSwiney,*J.) transferred to us the question whether the defendant’s prior uncounseled conviction for driving while intoxicated, first offense, may constitutionally be used to expose him to a sentence of imprisonment in his trial for DWI, second offense, as is authorized by RSA 265:82-b, 1(b) (Supp. 1983). The defendant argues that, absent a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel, the use of an uncounseled conviction to convert the sentence of a subsequent offense into a term of imprisonment violates the New Hampshire and federal constitutional guarantees of the right to counsel. N.H. Const, pt. I, art. 15; U.S. Const. amend. VI. After this question was transferred, we decided *State v. Cook,*125 N.H. 452, 481 A.2d 823 (1984). In light of *Cook,*we find the defendant’s claim to be without merit.

*Cook*held that uncounseled motor vehicle violation convictions could constitutionally support a decree of habitual offender status even though imprisonment resulted from violation of the decree. *Id.*at 458, 481 A.2d at 828; *see*RSA 262:23. Although *Cook*concerned a civil disability status, and not sentence enhancement, we believe that our opinion in *Cook*adequately addressed the State and federal constitutional issues before us in the present case. We therefore find it dispositive of the defendant’s claim.

*Remanded.*
# C_2016171EN.01000701.xml

| 12.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/7

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2016/C 171/08)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

| | EPSO/AD/322/16 — ADMINISTRATORS IN THE FIELD OF AUDIT (AD 5/AD 7) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/322/16 — ADMINISTRATORS IN THE FIELD OF AUDIT (AD 5/AD 7)

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 171 A of 12 May 2016.

Official Journal of the European Union

Further information can be found on the EPSO website:

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

              SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I, MAO Peng, Chief Executive 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: August 28, 2006                   By: /s/ MAO Peng
                                           -------------------------------------
                                                MAO Peng
                                                Chairman and
                                                Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 9, 2019

No. 04-18-00831-CV

Michael Thomas PAUL,

Appellant

v.

Miguel LOPEZ, Dave Padula, John Stricklin, Javier Zuniga, John Doe I, Det. Spiller, Ron 

Eberhardt, News4 WOAI,

Appellees

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-2085-CV-A

Honorable Jessica Crawford, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On October 31, 2018, appellant filed a notice of appeal in the trial court. On December 7, 

2018, we issued an order noting that the filing fee had not been paid and directing appellant, on 

or before December 17, 2018, to either (1) pay the filing fee; or (2) provide written proof that he 

is indigent or otherwise excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from

paying the filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c). On December 17, 2018, appellant filed a 

statement of inability to pay court costs in this court.

It appears that appellant did not file a statement of inability to pay court costs until after 

he filed his notice of appeal. However, an uncontested statement of inability to pay court costs 

filed in the appellate court can be adequate to fulfill the fundamental purpose of Rule 20.1. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c); Higgins v. Randall Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 257 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex. 

2008). Therefore, the trial court clerk, the court reporter, or any party may file a contest to 

appellant’s statement of inability to pay court costs on or before January 22, 2019. If no contest 

is filed, the statement’s allegations will be deemed true, and appellant will be permitted to 

proceed without the payment of the appellate filing fee or the cost to prepare the reporter’s 

record. However, appellant will still be required to request the reporter’s record in writing, which 

request must designate the portions of the proceedings and the exhibits to be included. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 34.6(b)(1). On the other hand, if a contest is timely filed, this court will issue an 

appropriate order. 
The clerk of this court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order and a copy of

appellant’s statement of inability to pay court costs to the parties, the trial court clerk, the court 

reporter, and the trial court judge. 

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of January, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Christopher Jenkins, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), rendered May 27, 2015, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), rendered May 27, 2015, affirmed.</p><p>The verdict convicting defendant of attempted assault in the third degree (<i>see</i> Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00[1]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (<i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis upon which to disturb the trial court's determinations concerning credibility. Defendant's intent to cause physical injury could be readily inferred from his act of throwing a punch in the direction of the police officer's face and then punching the officer in the stomach (Penal Law 120.00[1]; <a href="../2009/2009_02825.htm" target="_blank"><i>Matter of Edward H</i>., 61 AD3d 473</a>, 473 [2009]). "The fact that the officer managed to avoid physical injury [to his face] does not preclude a finding that [defendant] attempted to inflict such injury" (<i>see Matter of Marcel F.</i>, 233 AD2d 442, 442-443 [1996]). Nor did defendant's struggle to avoid apprehension negate a finding that he acted with the requisite injurious intent (<i>see People v Waite</i>, 2002 NY Slip Op 50260[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2002], <i>lv denied </i>99 NY2d 540 [2002]).</p><p>Defendant's claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he came dangerously close to causing physical injury is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. The factfinder could infer that defendant's first punch, which narrowly missed the officer's face because of his evasive action, came dangerously close to causing physical injury (<i>see</i> Penal Law § 110.00; <i>People v Bracey</i>, 41 NY2d 296, 300 [1977]; <i>Matter of Charles C.</i>, 309 AD2d 516, 517 [2003]; <i>see also </i>Penal Law § 10.00[9]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: November 29, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
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 Hudson's Grill International, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David L. Osborn, the President of
Hudson's Grill International, Inc., certify that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.

| | (Registrant)

HUDSON'S GRILL INTERNATIONAL,
INC.

By: s/s David L. Osborn

David L. Osborn, President

Date: May 20, 2008
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

f\sec\o01.080331
-77.8 -77.6 -77.4 -77.2 -77.0 -76.8 -76.6 -76.4 -76.2

38.4 38.6 38.8 39.0 39.2 39.4


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/08 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 08 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
#### Cutler vs. Ainsworth.

*Practice in míreme court.*

On error to this court, a party who has not himself noticed the cause for argument here, cannot demand a hearing, the other party asking a continuance.

ERROR to the Oireu.it Court for *Dane*County.

*Spooner & Lamb,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hopkins & Foote,*for defendants in error.

Oole, J.

A motion is made to continue tills cause. It was noticed *for*argument only by *the*plaintiff in *error,*in whose behalf the motion is made. The defendant in error insists that he has the right to have the cause argued and submitted at this term, since it is on the calendar. But we think he cannot force an argument of the cause, as he did not notice it. ■ At the last term we held, in the case of *Buckley vs. Lewis [ante,*p. 490], that a party could not force a cause to trial at the circuit in the absence of or against the 'consent of the opposite party, unless he had given the usual notice of trial. This decision is founded upon chap. *71,*Laws of 1859, which is doubtless intended to regulate the practice in courts of record in this state in the particulars we are now considering; but if there was a question whether that law fairly, by its language, applies to this' court, it is desirable that the practice be uniform.

*By the Court.*— -The motion to continue the cause is granted.
# C_2016292EN.01000201.xml

| 12.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 August 2016

(2016/C 292/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1153 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,05 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4386 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86038 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4310 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0859 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2293 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,020 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,26 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2604 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4601 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3050 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4460 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4559 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6506 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5390 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4989 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 226,97 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,9080 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4031 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4952 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 610,43 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4676 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,085 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,3675 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,746 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5156 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,5527 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,5558 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1153

JPY

Japanese yen

113,05

DKK

Danish krone

7,4386

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86038

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4310

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0859

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2293

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,020

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,26

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2604

RON

Romanian leu

4,4601

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3050

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4460

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4559

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6506

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5390

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4989

KRW

South Korean won

1 226,97

ZAR

South African rand

14,9080

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4031

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4952

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 610,43

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4676

PHP

Philippine peso

52,085

RUB

Russian rouble

72,3675

THB

Thai baht

38,746

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5156

MXN

Mexican peso

20,5527

INR

Indian rupee

74,5558

---

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

1

Source

---
# C_2016151EN.01000102.xml

| 28.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7802 — Amadeus/Navitaire)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 151/02)

On 19 January 2016, 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 32016M7802. 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 32016M7802. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
#### In re Report of the Commission on Continuing Legal Education. Thomas Laird Crowl, Jr. (# 0009645), Respondent.

1999 TERM

ORDER

[Filed August 31, 1999]

This matter originated in this Court on the filing of a report by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education (the “Commission”) pursuant to Gov. Bar R. X, Sec. 6, Div. (A) (1) (b) and Div. (A) (2) (d). The Commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, including the above-named respondent, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov. Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal Education, for the 1996-1997 reporting period.

On November 18, 1998, this Court issued to the respondent an order to show cause why the Commission’s recommendation should not be adopted and an order so entered against the respondent. Respondent filed objections to the Commission’s recommendation and this cause was considered by the Court. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the Court, *sua sponte,*that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
# --

1 

### Devany, Dennis (OST) From: Paul & Kathy [mtn.run02@gmail.com] Sent:. Saturday, February 13, 2010 8:41AM To:· Devany,. Dennis (OST) 

### ec: . backspin @yniaiLcom**Subj~c~~** . CapeAit

_ <**·".:7t-:,,~,.:**

# Tfie'Clfntb~:C6'Unty politicos made a

# hu~e mistake in dropping Cape Air. As usual, politicians only see tax money and the IIpie in theskyll maybes oftheirflawed logic. That's why they spent so much money ina meeting room in the airport and ignored passenger waiting passengercomfort. As usual, taxpayers will be hit in the wallet 

### by their 

### ill conceived decisions

... Paul.Endersbee Plattsburgh, NY

1