alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016089EN.01000801.xml

| 5.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/8

---

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)

(2016/C 89/11)

The European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, is hereby launching three calls for proposals in order to award grants to projects in accordance with the priorities and objectives defined in the work programme for 2016 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 three calls:

CEF-TC-2016-1: Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS)

CEF-TC-2016-1

CEF-TC-2016-1: Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI)

CEF-TC-2016-1

CEF-TC-2016-1: eProcurement

CEF-TC-2016-1

The total indicative budget available for proposals selected under these calls is EUR 32 million.

The deadline for the submission of proposals is 19 May 2016.

19 May 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

---
ALEX RACKLEY, 

Appellant, 

v. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 

CASE NO. 1D16-2544 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________/ 

Opinion filed December 1, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Linda F. McCallum, Judge. 

Alex Rackley, pro se, Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

Although we find Appellant’s motion under Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules 

of Criminal Procedure was timely filed, we reject Appellant’s claims on the merits 
and affirm. See Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002) (noting that 

appellate court may affirm a trial court order that reaches the right result but for the 

wrong reason).

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1392

THOMAS T. POSTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-98-3789-6) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas T. Poston, Appellant Pro Se. Carol S. Prescott, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Thomas T. Poston appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Commissioner on Poston’s action seeking review of the denial of Social Security disability benefits. This case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that summary judgment be granted to the Commissioner. Poston, who was represented by counsel in the district court, failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of the report and recommendation. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp. , 109 F.3d 198, 199-201 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that counseled party’s failure to timely file objections to magistrate judge’s recommendation waives his right to appeal). Because Poston did not file objections, he waived appellate review. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IN RE: SINY CORP.,

Appellant

______________________

2018-1077

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No. 

86754400.

______________________

O R D E R

______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and STOLL,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office filed 

a request to reissue the nonprecedential opinion in this 

case as a precedential opinion. The court grants the request and recalls the mandate of this court issued on March 

7, 2019. The precedential opinion issues concurrently with 

this order. The clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
2 IN RE: SINY CORP.

 FOR THE COURT

 April 10, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
# C_2016223EN.01000101.xml

| 21.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8003 — INEOS/INOVYN)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 223/01)

On 8 June 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 32016M8003. 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 32016M8003. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jay Sargeant, Chief Executive Officer of EYI Industries, Inc.
(the "Registrant"),certify that;

(1) I have  reviewed  this  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of EYI  Industries,
Inc.;

(2) Based on my knowledge,  this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a  material  fact  or omit  to  state a  material  fact  necessary  to make  the
statements made, in light of the circumstances  under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

(3)  Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)  The  Registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  Registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  Registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting that occurred  during the  Registrant's  most recent fiscal
quarter that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to materially
affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

(5) The Registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,  based on
our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting,  to
the  Registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee of  Registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design  or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  Registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:   November 21, 2005



        /s/ Jay Sargeant
By:     Jay Sargeant
Title:  Chief Executive Officer
# C_2016283EN.01000201.xml

| 5.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 August 2016

(2016/C 283/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1136 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,66 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4383 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84603 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5105 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0834 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4118 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,027 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,18 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2940 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4605 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3664 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4604 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4536 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6384 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5479 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4952 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 241,88 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,2998 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3961 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4827 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 649,41 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5057 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,417 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 73,7722 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,886 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5894 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,9694 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,4740 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1136

JPY

Japanese yen

112,66

DKK

Danish krone

7,4383

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84603

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5105

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0834

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4118

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,027

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,18

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2940

RON

Romanian leu

4,4605

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3664

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4604

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4536

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6384

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5479

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4952

KRW

South Korean won

1 241,88

ZAR

South African rand

15,2998

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3961

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4827

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 649,41

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5057

PHP

Philippine peso

52,417

RUB

Russian rouble

73,7722

THB

Thai baht

38,886

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5894

MXN

Mexican peso

20,9694

INR

Indian rupee

74,4740

---

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

1

Source

---
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Livingston, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Livingston*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 618.]

(No. 99-243

Submitted August 25, 1999

Decided September 29, 1999.)

*Michael K. Allen,*Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Tina I. Ernst,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

*Kenneth L. Lawson & Associates*and *Kenneth L. Lawson,*for appellee.

■ The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Hughes*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 424, 715 N.E.2d 540.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

*619Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s judgment for the reasons set forth in my dissent in *State v. Hughes*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 424, 715 N.E.2d 540.
Exhibit 31.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Stephen E. Sterrett, certify that:

1.         I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Simon Property Group, L.P.;

2.         Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and

3.         Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

Date: May 8, 2009/s/STEPHEN E. STERRETT Stephen E. Sterrett
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Simon Property Group, Inc., General Partner


76

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2724 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2724

          To reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 13, 2021

  Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Cassidy, and Mrs. Hyde-
Smith) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
        to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``NFIP Extension Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 
2021'' and inserting ``September 30, 2022''.
    (b) Program Expiration.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2021'' and inserting ``September 30, 2022''.
    (c) Retroactive Effective Date.--If this Act is enacted after 
September 30, 2021, the amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) 
shall take effect as if enacted on September 30, 2021.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES HANTON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 62 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of August , 2018

, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
<PAGE>



                         OAKWOOD ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
                          ANNUAL OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

                        OAKWOOD MORTGAGE INVESTORS, INC.
                  SENIOR/SUBORDINATED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
                                  SERIES 1996-B


Pursuant to Section 3.13(a) of the Standard Terms to Pooling and Servicing
Agreement (September 1994 Edition) which is incorporated in the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement dated July 1, 1996 among Oakwood Mortgage Investors, Inc.,
Oakwood Acceptance Corporation (the "Servicer") and PNC Bank, N.A., the
undersigned officer of the Servicer hereby certifies that a review of the
activities of the Servicer during the period July 1, 1996 through September 30,
1996 and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been
made under his supervision and to the best of his knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement through such period.



By:  /s/ Douglas R. Muir

Name:  Douglas R. Muir

Title:  Vice President

Date:  September 30, 1996
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.6


                          Independent Auditors' Consent




The Board of Directors
PLD Capital Asset (U.S.) Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (no.
333-35139) on Form S-8, in the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-4
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (no. 333-18713), in the registration
statement (no. 333-5396) on Form S-3, and in the registration statement (no.
333-5400) on Form S-3 of PLD Telekom Inc. of our report dated March 30, 1999,
relating to the balance sheet of PLD Capital Asset (U.S.) Inc. as of December
31, 1998, and the related statements of operations, shareholder's equity, and
cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 1998 of PLD
Telekom Inc.

Our report dated March 30, 1999 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company's parent, PLD Telekom Inc. (PLD) does not presently have
sufficient funds on hand to meet its current debt obligations. PLD's failure to
make payment in full when required could result in a cross-default under and
acceleration of other debt obligations for which the Company is a guarantor.
These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as
a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that
might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.



                                    KPMG LLP

New York, New York
April 23, 1999
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 ASIA CORK INC. on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Pengcheng Chen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. The Report 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 result of operations of the Company.





November 16, 2009





By: /s/ Pengcheng Chen___________________

Pengcheng Chen, CEO
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 4270

_____________________________
J EFF M ITCHELL B ELL J R , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Jackson County

. Wade Mercer , Judge

. September 14, 2020

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

. See Owens v. State

, 1D20

- 540, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2011a (Fla . 1st DCA Aug. 25, 2020) (holding that whether section 948.06(2) applies to a defendant who committed an offense before the statute was amended , when imposing sentence for a violation of probation, a trial court is limited under subsection 948.06(2)(f)1 to modifyin g or continuing probation or imposing a sentence of up to 90 days in county jail only when a defendant “meet[s] all four conditions of subsection 948.06(2)(f)1”).

M AKAR , K ELSEY , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# C_2015091EN.01000502.xml

| 18.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/5

---

Corrigendum to new national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 86 of 13 March 2015
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 86 of 13 March 2015

(2015/C 91/06)

On page 2:

for:

for:

‘Date of issue: June 2015’,

read:

read:

‘Date of issue: June 2014’.

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20679

Summary Calendar

RICHARD BAGGETT

Petitioner - Appellant

v. 

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION

Respondent - Appellee

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CV-1277

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

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Baggett, Texas prisoner # 507596, appeals the denial

of FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) relief and moves for a certificate of

appealability (COA) and permission to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) to challenge the district court’s transfer order construing

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his aggravated sexual

assault conviction as successive. He has also moved for a threejudge panel.
No. 06-20679

-2-

The district court’s transfer order that Baggett seeks to

challenge is a non-appealable interlocutory order. See Brinar v.

Williamson, 245 F.3d 515, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore the

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b)

relief. See Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402

(5th Cir. 1981). Because this case presents only Baggett’s

appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and is not an

appeal from the merits of his habeas petition, no COA is

required. See Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491, 492 (5th Cir.

2002). 

AFFIRMED; COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; IFP DENIED; MOTION FOR

THREE-JUDGE PANEL DENIED AS MOOT.