alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015271EN.01000601.xml

| 18.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7565 — Danish Crown/Tican)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 271/04)

On 17 July 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 32015M7565. EUR-Lex is the on-line 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 32015M7565. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2016146EN.01001001.xml

| 26.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/10

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2016/C 146/10)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : The Vatican City State

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : Jubilee of Mercy

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The national face features St Martin of Tours sharing his cloak with a poor man. The design is surrounded by the inscriptions ‘GIUBILEO DELLA MISERICORDIA’ at the left and ‘CITTÀ DEL VATICANO’ at the right, both in semi-circle. At the right there is as well the year of issuance ‘2016’ and at the bottom the mint mark ‘R’ and the name of the artist ‘M. CRISCIOTTI’.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : October 2016

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-KSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         624,869
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,408,839
<ALLOWANCES>                                    83,027
<INVENTORY>                                  2,606,907
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,742,961
<PP&E>                                       3,297,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                 699,902
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,769,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,216,520
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,625,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,800
<OTHER-SE>                                    (229,088)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,769,018
<SALES>                                     14,754,491
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,754,491
<CGS>                                        5,312,022
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,373,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             136,540
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                943,766
<INCOME-TAX>                                   372,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            571,766
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   571,766
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .73


</TABLE>
February 9, 2015 STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREMECOURT A15-0137
Inre Petitionfor DisciplinaryAction against PatrickJ. Nolan, III, a MinnesotaAttorney, RegistrationNo. 121307.
ORDER 

# fiL--**Dm~EOF** 

### APPB.lAlEC 

### s

The Director ofthe Office ofLawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Patrick 

### J. Nolan, III, committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, being convicted of a felony for making a false statement to United States Postal Inspection Service agents during the course of a criminal investigation, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b) and 8.4(c). Respondent watves his rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), unconditionally admits the allegations in the petition, and with the Director recommends that the appropriate discipline is an indefinite suspension with
norighttopetition for reinstatement for 3 years. The court independently reviewed the file and approves the recommended disposition. Basedupon all the files, records, andproceedingsherein,

### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Respondent Patrick J. 

### Nolan, III, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective as ofthe date ofthe filing ofthis order, with no right to petition for reinstatement for 3years. 2. Respondent may petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18(a)-(d), RLPR. Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination, satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements pursuant to Rule 18(e), RLPR, and proofofcompliance with the terms ofrespondent's criminal probation. 3. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals), and shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR. Dated: February 9, 2015 BY THE COURT:

2
# C_2015186EN.01000201.xml

| 5.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 June 2015

(2015/C 186/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1317 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 140,47 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4599 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73540 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3396 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0551 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,7370 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,467 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 312,30 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1692 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4285 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0377 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4618 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4089 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7733 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5834 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5221 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 256,92 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,9625 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0177 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5605 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 047,75 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1867 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,790 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 62,1695 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,171 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5498 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,5812 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,4362 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1317

JPY

Japanese yen

140,47

DKK

Danish krone

7,4599

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73540

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3396

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0551

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,7370

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,467

HUF

Hungarian forint

312,30

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1692

RON

Romanian leu

4,4285

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0377

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4618

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4089

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7733

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5834

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5221

KRW

South Korean won

1 256,92

ZAR

South African rand

13,9625

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0177

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5605

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 047,75

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1867

PHP

Philippine peso

50,790

RUB

Russian rouble

62,1695

THB

Thai baht

38,171

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5498

MXN

Mexican peso

17,5812

INR

Indian rupee

72,4362

---

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

1

Source

---
J-A21014-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

JOSHUA JEAN, :

:

Appellant : No. 2959 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 14, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0013192-2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW and MUSMANNO, JJ.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 22, 2016

I agree with the Majority’s conclusion that, where the prosecutor had 

elicited testimony regarding Appellant’s prior arrest (or incarceration), 

defense counsel’s decision to forego a curative instruction waived Appellant’s 

ability to plead prejudice on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Norman, 549 

A.2d 981, 986 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (citing Commonwealth v. 

Miller, 481 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Super. 1221 (Pa. Super. 1984), and concluding 

that, “[w]hen counsel chooses to refuse appropriate curative instructions for 

[a] legitimate tactical reason, the defense may not plead prejudice on 

appeal.”). I write separately to express my disagreement with the 

conclusions reached by this Court in Norman and Miller. 

A trial court may grant a mistrial “only where the incident upon which 

the motion is based is of such a nature that its unavoidable effect is to 

deprive the defendant of a fair trial by preventing the jury from weighing 
J-A21014-16

- 2 -

and rendering a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262, 

1273 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted). However, our Supreme Court has 

concluded that “‘[a] mistrial is not necessary where cautionary instructions

are adequate to overcome prejudice.’” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. 

Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381, 422 (Pa. 2011)). 

Absent a defendant’s confession, nothing can be more damaging and 

prejudicial to a defendant than testimony regarding a defendant’s prior 

arrest or conviction. In my 35 years of judicial experience, once a jury 

learns of a defendant’s prior conviction, the presumption of innocence, in 

reality, disappears. The impact of such testimony is immediate, and 

prevents the jury “from weighing and rendering a true verdict.” See Cash, 

137 A.3d at 1273. The remedy of a “curative” instruction is illusory, as it 

cannot overcome the impact of such testimony on a jury. 

Judge Dubow joins this concurring statement.
#### Downer vs. Sexton, impleaded with others.

Where the allegations of a complaint are not denied, no finding of facts by the court is required.

Where a finding is needed to support a judgment, it is sufficient if the court find generally, that all the allegations of the complaint are true.

*30APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Milwaukee*County.

Foreclosure of a mortgage. The complaint stated, among other things, that the defendant *Sexton*and others had or claimed some interest in the mortgaged premises, but that such interest was subsequent to the lien of the plaintiff’s mortgage. There was no answer. The court found certain facts specifically, and also found that all the allegations of the complaint were true. Judgment for the plaintiff, foreclosing the rights of all the defendants ; from which *Sexton*appealed.

*Jenkins &*Hickox, for appellant.

*J.*Downer, in person.

*By the*Court,

PAINE, J.

The only point made by the appellant is, that the finding is not sufficient to sustain the judgment, inasmuch as the judgment bars him of all equity of redemption, and yet there is no express finding that his interest was subsequent to this mortgage. There are several good answers to this claim. The first is, that no issue was made on the question: the allegations of the complaint were *not*denied, and therefore no finding was needed. The next is, that if a finding had been needed, there is a sufficient one, as the court, in addition to the express statement of facts found, said also that all the allegations of the complaint were true.

This appeal was too evidently brought for delay, to justify any fuller notice of the brief.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs and damages.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000773

31-DEC-2014

10:39 AM
April 28, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PACIFIC WESTERN BANK, AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO 

CAPITALSOURCE BANK, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00366-CV V.

BRAZORIA COUNTY, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Brazoria 

County, signed April 24, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of 

the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Pacific Western Bank, as successor by merger to 

CapitalSource Bank, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00394-CV

IN RE STEPHAN HWANG RELATOR

----------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

TRIAL COURT NO. 15-02287-158

----------

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

I respectfully dissent. Relator alleges that Respondent gave an order in 

open court for Relator to appear before him on October 24, 2016, to face a 

contempt hearing if payment had not been made on the assessed sanctions 

(attorney’s fees), and we stayed that proceeding while considering Relator’s 

petition. A trial court has no authority to hold a party in contempt for failing to pay 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

attorney’s fees assessed as discovery sanctions. See In re McLaurin, 

467 S.W.3d 561, 564–66 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding) 

(granting habeas relief when any imprisonment of relator for either civil or 

criminal contempt for failure to pay a debt—attorney’s fees assessed as 

sanctions—was void). Therefore, in the interest of conserving judicial resources, 

I would have requested a response to address the trial court’s contempt authority 

under the circumstances presented by this case to avoid the necessity of 

addressing this issue in a subsequent original proceeding for habeas corpus 

relief. Because the majority opinion does not, I dissent.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

BONNIE SUDDERTH

JUSTICE

DELIVERED: November 22, 2016
Exhibit 32.2

                            GLOBUS GROWTH GROUP, INC.

                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 of Globus Growth Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lisa
Vislocky, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (3)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (4)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.


                                        By: /s/ Lisa Vislocky
                                            Lisa Vislocky
                                            Chief Financial Officer

July 20, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Globus Growth Group, Inc. and will be retained by Globus Growth
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
# C_2016167EN.01000201.xml

| 11.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7959 — APG/DV4/QDREIC/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 167/03)

On 28 April 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 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 32016M7959. 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 32016M7959. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
June 2, 2015

Mr. Arvid Elias

7001 Seaview Ave. Seattle, WA 98117

Dear Mr. Elias:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 1, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1384), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 16.1



                                 July 23, 1998



Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC 20549

RE:  Forsyth Bancshares, Inc.
     File No. 333-10909

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We were previously principal accountants for Forsyth Bancshares, Inc. and, under
the date of February 3, 1998, we reported on the consolidated financial
statements of Forsyth Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of and for the years
ended December 31, 1997 and 1996. On March 17, 1998 our appointment as principal
accountants was terminated. We have read Forsyth Bancshares, Inc.'s statements
included under item 8 of its Form 10-KSB dated March 31, 1999 and we agree with
such statements, except that we are not in a position to agree or disagree with
Forsyth Bancshares, Inc.'s statements under item 4(a)(iii) and the statements
under item 4(b)(i) regarding new independent accountants.

                                 
                                 Very truly yours,

                                 /s/ Porter Keadle Moore, LLP

                                 PORTER KEADLE MOORE, LLP
II 

Calendar No. 134 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2788 

To reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. 

CASSIDY, and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was 

read the first time 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program. 

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 ‘‘NFIP Extension Act 

5 of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2788 PCS

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSUR2 ANCE PROGRAM. 

3 (a) FINANCING.—Section 1309(a) of the National 

4 Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2021’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘December 3, 2021’’. 

7 (b) PROGRAM EXPIRATION.—Section 1319 of the Na8 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2021’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘December 3, 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 134 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2788 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the National Flood Insurance 

Program. 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS