alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014453EN.01002401.xml

| 17.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 453/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 453/24

---

Special Report No 22/2014 ‘Achieving economy: keeping the costs of EU-financed rural development project grants under control’

(2014/C 453/12)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 22/2014 ‘Achieving economy: keeping the costs of EU-financed rural development project grants under control’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
TANK # Diameter (ft) Depth (ft) Completion 

Date MDLR Results Completion Date MDLR Results Completion Date MDLR Results Completion Date MDLR Results

1 100 250

2 100 250 6/24/2009 0.7 PASS 2/8/2012 0.7 PASS 2/20/2013 0.7 PASS

3 100 250 3/9/2009 0.7 PASS 2/21/2011 0.7 PASS 3/7/2-03 0.7 PASS

4 100 250 6/5/2009 0.7 PASS 3/17/2011 0.7 PASS 4/5/2013 0.7 PASS

5 100 250 6/18/2009 0.7 PASS

6 100 250 3/15/2009 0.7 PASS 2/13/2011 0.7 PASS 3/22/2013 0.7 PASS

7 100 250 4/9/2009 0.7 PASS 1/21/2011 0.7 PASS 2/14/2013 0.7 PASS

8 100 250 5/12/2009 0.7 PASS 3/11/2011 0.7 PASS 2/13/2013 0.7 PASS

9 100 250 3/11/2008 0.5 Pass 3/9/2011 0.7 PASS 2/28/2013 0.7 PASS

10 100 250 5/19/2009 0.7 PASS 1/13/2011 0.7 PASS 2/6/2013 0.7 PASS

11 100 250 6/2/2009 0.7 PASS 1/13/2011 0.7 PASS 2/7/2013 0.7 PASS

12 100 250 5/26/2009 0.7 PASS 2/6/2011 0.7 PASS 3/1/2013 0.7 PASS

13 100 250 5/19/2009 0.7 PASS 2/25/2011 0.7 PASS 3/29/2013 0.7 PASS

14 100 250 6/11/2009 0.7 PASS 3/4/2011 0.7 PASS

15 100 250 3/11/2008 0.5 Pass 3/25/2011 0.7 PASS 2/22/2013 0.7 PASS

16 100 250 5/12/2009 0.7 PASS 2/28/2011 0.7 PASS 3/15/2013 0.7 PASS

17 100 250 4/8/2009 0.7 PASS

18 100 250 5/29/2009 0.7 PASS 1/28/2011 0.7 PASS 1/30/2013 0.7 PASS

19 100 250

20 100 250 3/18/2011 0.7 PASS 1/31/2013 0.7 PASS

Removed From Service

Out of Service for Inspection 

Removed From Service

Not in service

Not in service 

2009 2011

Out of Service for Inspection 

Out of Service for Inspection 

Removed From Service

Out of Service for Inspection 

All test performed with the Mass Technology Corporation method

Discription

Tested 2008

Tested 2008

2008

RED HILL - BIENNIAL TEST HISTORY

Not in service Removed From Service

2013

Out of Service for Inspection
#### HENDRICKS vs. VAN CAMP.

APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT, OUTAGAMIE COUNTS’.

Heard September 27, 1859.]

[Decided January 4, 1860.

*Appeal*— Practice.

An appeal -will be dismissed unless there is a proper return of the record of the cause from the circuit court.

The facts in this case can be gathered from the opinion of the court.

*F. Packard,*for the respondent.

*P. P. Eaton,*for the appellant.

*By the Court,*

Paine, J.

This was an appeal from an order refusing to strike from the files a' judgment roll. The return consists of a bill of exceptions containing the affidavit used on the hearing and reciting the facts that an order was made, but there is no certified copy of the order, as required by sec. 5, chap. 139, R. S., 1858. There have been several affidavits filed outside of the record, among which is one by the attorney for the appellants stating the reasons why he did not file an affidavit of merits in the court below, and another by the attorney of record for the respondent stating that the attorney who appeared at the hearing of the motion was not the attorney of record, but was only employed by him for that special occasion, and that no notice of settlement of bill of exceptions had been served on him, and that his client at the time the appeal was taken was insane, and that proceedings were pending for the appointment of a guardian. This method of presenting matters on appeal is a little unusual, though perhaps, under the circumstances, the latter affidavit was properly presented.

*443We have concluded to dismiss the appeal, for want of such a return as the statute requires.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); and
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Michael K. RobinsonMichael K. RobinsonChief Executive Officer, President and Assistant
Treasurer  33
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARIA SALINAS, 

 

 Appellant,

v.

MANUEL SALINAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00006-CV

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2015DCM1368)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s fourth motion for an extension to time to secure a 

written judgment signed by the trial court. Appellant filed notice of appeal on January 5, 2017, 

but the clerk’s record does not contain a written judgment. On February 10, 2017, the Court 

notified Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence 

of a written judgment in the record. The Court subsequently granted Appellant three extensions 

of time in which to secure the judgment. Appellant has now filed a fourth extension request and 

his explanation is that counsel has been unable to contact the court reporter to determine whether 

the judgment is correct. This is the same reason he gave in previous extension motion. The 

Court has been patient, and we have given Appellant four months to obtain a written judgment 

signed by the trial court. In our letter notice granting the most recent extension request, we 

warned Appellant that failure to get the judgment filed by the deadline could result in dismissal 

of the appeal for lack of prosecution. Appellant’s motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of June, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
Order entered February 22, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00714-CV

ROBERT L. WILSON, Appellant

V.

J. RANDLE HENDERSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15162

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s February 20, 2019 motion for leave to file an amended 

brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant to file separately the amended brief 

attached to his motion within ten days of the date of this order.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
#### Vanhorn v. Stroup.

*Justice of the peace*— Appeals—Defective *affidavit*— Bond—Perfecting *appeal*— Practice, *C. P.*

1. The affidavit for an appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace, while properly averring that the appeal is not for delay, is defective if it avers that "deponent believes he will be compelled to pay more money than is justly due if the judgment be carried into effect.’’

2. In such case deponent should aver that “he verily believes that injustice has been done.”

3. A bond on appeal is defective which binds the obligors only in case of trial.

4. The remedy for such defects is by rule to perfect the appeal and not by motion to strike it off.

Appeal from justice of the peace. C. P. Snyder Co., Dec. T., 1920, No. 2.

*A. F. Gilbert,*for plaintiff; *H. H. Grimm,*for defendant.

Nov. 23, 1921.

A. W. Johnson, P. J.,

The plaintiff has filed two exceptions to the defendant’s appeal from the judgment of the justice of the peace. The exceptions do not specify wherein the appeal is defective, but, in examining the affidavit and the bond filed, we find that neither the affidavit nor the bond complies in form with the requirements of the law. In the affidavit the defendant says: “That the appeal in the above case is not taken for the purpose of delay, but because deponent believes that he will be compelled to pay more money than is justly due if the judgment be carried into effect.” The affidavit should contain these words: “That the appeal is not for delay, but because he verily believes that injustice has been done.”

The bond is also defective. It binds the obligors only in case of trial. It should bind them to payment of debt, interest and costs that have and will accrue on affirmance of the judgment.

But the remedy is not to strike off the appeal, but to have the appeal perfected before any procedure in the case.

In Means *v.*Trout, 16 S. & R. 349, it was held that if the recognizance given on appeal from the award of arbitrators or a justice of the peace be defective, the party should be called on by a rule to perfect his bail within a given period or, in default thereof, to have his appeal dismissed; the court ought not to quash the appeal in the first instance.

The motion to strike off the appeal in this case will be dismissed, but the defendant may be called on by rule to perfect his affidavit and his bail within fifteen days from the filing of this opinion, or the defendant may perfect his affidavit and his bail within fifteen days from the filing of this opinion.

And now, Nov. 23, 1921, the motion to strike off the appeal is dismissed and the plaintiff is allowed fifteen days from the filing of this opinion to call on the appellant by a rule to perfect his affidavit and bail as herein specified, or the defendant may so perfect his affidavit and bail within the said time.

From M. I. Potter, Middleburg, Pa.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           9,043
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,462)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,353
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          211,643
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    29,815,841
<OTHER-SE>                                (29,815,841)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,353
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,977
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,977)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,977)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,977)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2015428EN.01000901.xml

| 19.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/9

---

Special Report No 21/2015

‘Review of the risks related to a results-oriented approach for EU development and cooperation action’

(2015/C 428/06)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 21/2015 ‘Review of the risks related to a results-oriented approach for EU development and cooperation action’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| Email: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

Email: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mikel H. Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of DDi Corp. (the Company) certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
period ended June 30, 2009 (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 for the period covered by the Report.



/s/ MIKEL H. WILLIAMSMikel H. WilliamsPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Date: July 31, 2009
Document

Exhibit 10.4
Executed Version

Certain identified information marked with “[***]” has been omitted from this document because it is both (i) not material and (ii) the type that the registrant treats as private or confidential.
AMENDMENT No. 11 TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT COM0270-15
This Amendment No. 11 COM0375-20 (the "Amendment No. 11"), dated as of December 04, 2020 (“Amendment No. 11”) is between Yaborã Indústria Aeronáutica S.A. (the assignee of Embraer S.A.) ("Seller") and Aircastle Holding Corporation Limited (“Buyer”) collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”, and constitutes an amendment and modification to Purchase Agreement COM0270-15 dated June 12th, 2015 as amended from time to time (the "Purchase Agreement").
All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning when used herein as provided in the Purchase Agreement and in case of any conflict between this Amendment No. 11 and the Purchase Agreement, this Amendment No. 11 shall control.
WHEREAS, [***];
WHEREAS, [***].
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows:
1. [***].
2. [***].
3. REINSTATEMENT OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT
All other provisions and conditions of the referenced Purchase Agreement, as well as its related Attachments, which are not specifically modified by this Amendment No. 11 shall remain in full force and effect without any change.
4. COUNTERPARTS
This Amendment No. 11 may be signed by the parties hereto in any number of separate counterparts with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
This Amendment No. 11 may be signed by facsimile with originals duly signed to follow by an internationally recognized courier.
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK – SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]













Exhibit 10.4
Executed Version









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SELLER and BUYER, by their duly authorized officers, have entered into and executed this Amendment No. 11 to be effective as of the date first written above.


									
	YABORÃ INDÚSTRIA
AERONÁUTICA S.A.	AIRCASTLE HOLDING CORPORATION LIMITED

	



By         /s/ Arjan Meijer
Name:  Arjan Meijer
Title:    CEO Embraer Commercial
            Aviation


	



By           /s/ Stephen Quinn
Name:   Stephen Quinn
Title:      Director

	



By          /s/ Marcelo Santiago
Name:  Marcelo Santiago
Title:     Vice President Contracts &
             Asset Management




	
	Place:  São José dos Campos, SP
            Brazil	Place:   Stamford, CT
CMP-8 

Revised: May 3, 2004

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Supplemental Application Form 

Conservation Management Practices: ONIONS AND GARLIC 

Farm Name: CMP Plan Years: to 

Maximum Crop Acreage: 

Fallow Acreage Last Planted in Onions or Garlic: 

Land 

Preparation/ 

Cultivation 

Select at least one of the following CMPs. 

Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs. 

 Bed/Row Size or Spacing, ac Multiple CMPs in Another Category 

 Chemigation/Fertigation, ac Night Farming, ac 

 Combined Operations, ac Precision Farming (GPS), ac 

 Conservation Irrigation, ac Transgenic Crops, ac 

 Conservation Tillage, ac Transplanting, ac 

 Equipment Change/Tech. Improvements, ac Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac 

 Mulching, ac 

Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: 

 

 

 

Harvest 

Select at least one of the following CMPs. 

Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs. 

 Combined Operations, ac Pre-harvest Soil Preparation, ac 

 Equipment Change/Tech. Improvements, ac Shed Packing, ac 

 Hand Harvesting, ac Shuttle System, ac 

 Multiple CMPs in Another Category Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac 

 Night Harvesting, ac 

Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: 

 

 

 

Other 

Select at least one of the following CMPs. 

Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs. 

 Application Efficiencies, ac Multiple CMPs in Another Category 

 Bulk Materials Control No Burning, ac 

 Integrated Pest Management (IPM), ac Surface Roughening, ac 

 Irrigation Power Units Wind Barrier, ac 

 Mulching, ac Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac 

Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: 

 

 

 

CMP

8
# C_2015340EN.01000102.xml

| 15.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7564 — Mahle Behr/Delphi Thermal Systems Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 340/02)

On 23 June 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 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 32015M7564. 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 32015M7564. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
##### 



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 DDi Corp. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce D.
McMaster, 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 the best of 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 result of operations of the Company. Date: August 13, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Bruce D. McMasterBruce D. McMaster
Chief Executive Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

TONY HOSLEY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1704 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 29, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Joseph Bulone, Judge. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and SMITH JJ., Concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RONNIE EUGENE JOHNSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 12 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of June, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.