alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0894 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0894

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 894/2003 of 22 May 2003 fixing the maximum export refund on oats in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1582/2002 **

*
Official Journal L 127 , 23/05/2003 P. 0028 - 0028 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 894/2003

of 22 May 2003

fixing the maximum export refund on oats in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1582/2002

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1163/2002(4), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1324/2002(5), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1582/2002 of 5 September 2002 on a special intervention measure for cereals in Finland and Sweden(6), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland or Sweden to all third countries was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1582/2002, except for Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia und Hungary.

(2) Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1582/2002 provides that the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders notified, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95. In that case a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose bid is equal to or lower than the maximum refund.

(3) The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the cereal in question results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the amount specified in Article 1.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 16 to 22 May 2003, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1582/2002, the maximum refund on exportation of oats shall be EUR 9,95/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 May 2003.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 May 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7.

(4) OJ L 170, 29.6.2002, p. 46.

(5) OJ L 194, 23.7.2002, p. 26.

(6) OJ L 243, 13.9.2001, p. 15.
cosm_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1
  
  
  	 
	1

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	2

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	3

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	4

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	5

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	6

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	7

	 

	 


  
  
  
  	 8
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fausto BECERRA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41612 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 11, 2018

John A. Reed, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s *214Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Edward A. Stapleton, III, Esq., Staple-ton *&*Stapleton, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, Fausto Becerra was sentenced, below the guidelines range, to 90 months of imprisonment based on the district court’s finding that he was accountable for 14.97 kilograms of cocaine. On appeal, Becerra contends — for the first time — that the Government breached the plea agreement, which inadvertently stated that he was instead accountable for 19.99 kilograms of marijuana. Because Becerra did not raise this challenge in the district court, we review for plain error. *See United States v. Williams,*821 F.3d 656, 657 (5th Cir. 2016); *Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

Becerra’s argument is wholly concluso-ry; he fails to meaningfully address the requisite plain error factors or cite any relevant authority. *See United States v. Reyes,*300 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2002) (explaining that the defendant has the burden to show each prong of the plain error test). Consequently, he has abandoned the challenge to his sentence. *See United States v. Reagan,*596 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2010); *United States v. Charles,*469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006). In any event, we would not find reversible plain error because the record reflects that the Government’s conduct was consistent with Be-cerra’s reasonable understanding of the plea agreement. *United States v. Purser,*747 F.3d 284, 290 (5th Cir. 2014); *Puckett,*556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment.

*

 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 Cm, R. 47.5.4.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 966 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.966

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                                 An Act

 
       For the relief of Nathan C. Vance, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT TO NATHAN C. VANCE.

    (a) Payment.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary of 
Agriculture shall pay $4,850.00 to Nathan C. Vance of Wyoming for fire 
loss arising out of the Mink Area Fire in and around Yellowstone 
National Park in 1988.
    (b) Source of Funds.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay the 
amount specified in subsection (a) from amounts made available under 
section 1304 of title 31, United States Code.
    (c) Condition of Payment.--The payment made pursuant to subsection 
(a) shall be in full satisfaction of the claim of Nathan C. Vance 
against the United States, for fire loss arising out of the Mink Area 
Fire, that was received by the Forest Service in August 1990.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 

Telephone: (808) 587-2997 

Email: glenn.i.kimura@hawaii.gov 

Attorney for Respondent 

BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

FRANK HINSHAW, SKYDIVING 

SCHOOL, INC., d/b/a SKYDIVE HAW All 

and ISLAND SKYDIVING, L.L.C. 

FAA DOCKET NO. 16-12-04 

STATE OF HAWAII'S CORRECTIVE 

ACTION; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Complainant, 

VS. 

STATE OF HAWAII, 

Respondent. 

STATE OF HAWAII'S CORRECTIVE ACTION 

Respondent STATE OF HAW All (hereinafter "State"), by and through its attorneys, 

David M. Louie, Attorney General, and Glenn I. Kimura, Deputy Attorney General, hereby 

submits the State's Correction Action Plan in accordance with the Director's Preliminary 

Determination in the above-caption matter as follows: 

tinsha\v. DOC 
Budget and Finance and Business, Economic Development and Tourism in working towards 

having the public hearings scheduled on Maui, State of Hawaii, during the first week of 

November 2014. In the interim pending the formal adoption of the said Hana Airport Rules, the 

State proposes to enter into a Letter of Agreement ("LOA'') in which the Complainant a,brrees to 

abide with the proposed Hana Airport Rules that were developed in coordination with 

Complainant's prior attorney and helicopter operators at the Hana Airport but further action was 

pending due to DRAFT AC 150/5300-13 CHG 19 to AC 150/5300-13 Section 214 Guidance for 

Parachute Landing Area. The Letter of Agreement will require maintaining membership in the 

U.S. Parachute Association (USPA) and having Complainant obtain a waiver from the USPA for 

use of the available designated Parachute Landing Area (PLA) as this area does not meet the 

USP A Basic Safety Requirements (BSR) as stated in BSR Section 2-1, paragraph I, 1. The 

Complainant will also be required to add the State as an additionally insured under the USPA 

member skydiving liability insurance and include the State in all liability waivers signed by 

participants in the skydiving activity. The State will confirm with F AA/HNL ADO for approval 

of the designated area within Hana Airport. Skydiving operations at Hana Airport can 

commence upon receipt of the signed LOA and notification that the said USPA waiver is ,b>Tanted 

along with providing the certificate of insurance naming the State as an additionally insured. 

hinshaw.DOC 2 
hinshaw.DOC 

3 

Deputy Attorney General 

Attorney for Respondent 

State of Hawaii 
and ISLAND SKYDIVING, LL.C. 

Complainant, 

vs. 

STATE OF HAWAII, 

Respondent. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 17, 2014, a true copy of the foregoing 

document was served on the following: 

hinshaw.DOC 

RICHARD J. DURDEN, ESQ. 

Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, CO 80433 

Attorney for Complainant 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

AGC-610, Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Email: 9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov 

Via U.S. Mail 

Via Electronic Mail 
hinshaw. 2
Exhibit 35.1  LOGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084,
8th Floor 401 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2014, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor, and
CITIBANK N.A., as Certificate Administrator and DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-GC25 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise
defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing
Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:  1.
A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2018 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and  2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.  LOGO ____________________________ Leslie Hayton Managing Director Wells Fargo Bank  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

LOGO
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL AND EXECUTIVE FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Action Acquisition Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Rozelle, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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: February 15, 2010



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph Rozelle                                                  
|Joseph Rozelle
President
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### Gregory C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C SMITH, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-55074

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Gregory C. Bontemps, Pro Se

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE-, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gregory C. Bontemps, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after revoking his in forma pauperis status (“IFP”) on the ground that Bontemps has “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,*833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly revoked Bon-temps’ IFP status because at least three of Bontemps’ prior cases qualified as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1916, and Bon-temps did not allege facts demonstrating that he faced imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint. *See Knapp v. Hogan,*738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (defining when a case is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and can be considered a strike); *Andrews v. Cervantes,*493 F.3d 1047, 1055-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing imminent danger exception).

Bontemps’ motion seeking appointment of counsel, attached to his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 13.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Partnership Form 20-F
 (1)
    
    The Form 20-F 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
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
  By:
    /s/ Peter EvensenPeter EvensenChief Executive Officer and
 Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned executive officer of FirstFederal Bancshares of Arkansas, Inc. (the “Registrant”) hereby certifiesthat the Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31,2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained thereinfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

 

 
|   |   |   | By:    | /s/ Larry J. Brandt     |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Larry J. Brandt         |
|   |   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

Date:    May 17,2010

 

----
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Eyal Rubin, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Protalix
BioTherapeutics, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: June 1, 2020                                       | 
|-------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                         | 
|/s/ Eyal Rubin                                           | 
|Eyal Rubin                                               | 
|Sr. Vice President & Chief Financial Officer,
 Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD
ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q
FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,742
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,294
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,318
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,301
<PP&E>                                           5,158
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,238
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,531
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,663
<CGS>                                            4,373
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    882
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                882
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       882
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06


</TABLE>
Table 5 - depreciation in ES analysis

Column #: 1 2 3 4 5 6

BAU/SNCR/SCR cases Market cases

Year Rate baseDepreciationNPV of depreciation Year Rate base

(YE) payments (2012$) (YE)
$540.67 20111,084.0 $ 20111,084.0 $ 20121,040.6 $ 43.36 20121,040.6 $ 2013 997.3 $ 43.36 2013 997.3 $ 2014 953.9 $ 43.36 2014953.9 $ 2015 910.6 $ 43.36 2015 910.6 $ 2016 867.2 $ 43.36 2016867.2 $ 2017 823.8 $ 43.36 2017 838.3 $ 2018 780.5 $ 43.36 2018823.8 $ 2019 737.1 $ 43.36 2019 823.8 $ 2020 693.8 $ 43.36 2020823.8 $ 2021 650.4 $ 43.36 2021 823.8 $ 2022 607.0 $ 43.36 2022 823.8 $ 2023 563.7 $ 43.36 2023 823.8 $ 2024 520.3 $ 43.36 2024823.8 $ 2025 477.0 $ 43.36 2025 823.8 $ 2026 433.6 $ 43.36 2026823.8 $ 2027 390.2 $ 43.36 2027 823.8 $ 2028 346.9 $ 43.36 2028823.8 $ 2029 303.5 $ 43.36 2029 823.8 $ 2030 260.2 $ 43.36 2030823.8 $ 2031 216.8 $ 43.36 2031 823.8 $ 2032 173.4 $ 43.36 2032 823.8 $ 2033 130.1 $ 43.36 2033 823.8 $ 2034 86.7 $ 43.36 2034823.8 $ 2035 43.4 $ 43.36 2035 823.8 $ 2036 (0.0) $ 43.36 2036823.8 $

Sources:$1084 million ratebase in 2011 per Energy Strategies, 1/14/13, p. 26.

No post-shutdown depreciation in market cases per Energy Strategies, 1/14/13, p. 30. $318 million ratebase in 2012 per Annual Reports and 10-Ks of NPC, TEP, SRP, APS $363 million ratebase in 2011 per NREL, p. 17, sum of "Net Plant in Service" and "Construction Work in Progress" for SRP, LADWP, APS, NV Energy, and TEP Discount rate of 7% per Energy Strategies, 1/14/13, p. 21. Straight line depreciation through 2036 per Energy Strategies, 1/14/13, p. 26.7 8 9 10 11 12

Market cases Effect of Corrected ES model with actual net plant data discontinuing Depreciation

NPV of depreciationdepreciation Rate baseDepreciationNPV of depreciation payments (2012$) in market cases: (YE) payments (2012$)
$220.47 ($320.20) $158.61 330.7 $ 43.36 318.0 $ 12.72 43.36 305.3 $ 12.72 43.36 292.6 $ 12.72 43.36 279.8 $ 12.72 43.36 267.1 $ 12.72 28.90667 254.4 $ 12.72 14.45333 241.7 $ 12.72 0 229.0 $ 12.72 0 216.2 $ 12.72 0 203.5 $ 12.72 0 190.8 $ 12.72 0 178.1 $ 12.72 0 165.4 $ 12.72 0 152.6 $ 12.72 0 139.9 $ 12.72 0 127.2 $ 12.72 0 114.5 $ 12.72 0 101.8 $ 12.72 0 89.0 $ 12.72 0 76.3 $ 12.72 0 63.6 $ 12.72 0 50.9 $ 12.72 0 38.2 $ 12.72 0 25.4 $ 12.72 0 12.7 $ 12.72

$363 million ratebase in 2011 per NREL, p. 17, sum of "Net Plant in Service" and "Construction Work in Progress" for SRP, LADWP, APS, NV Energy, and TEP13 14 15
Corrected ES model with actual net plant data

Rate baseDepreciation

NPV of depreciation per NREL payments (2012$)
$181.29 363.5 $348.9 $ 14.5

$ 334.4 $ 14.5

$ 319.9 $ 14.5

$ 305.3 $ 14.5

$ 290.8 $ 14.5

$ 276.2 $ 14.5

$ 261.7 $ 14.5

$ 247.2 $ 14.5

$ 232.6 $ 14.5

$ 218.1 $ 14.5

$ 203.5 $ 14.5

$ 189.0 $ 14.5

$ 174.5 $ 14.5

$ 159.9 $ 14.5

$ 145.4 $ 14.5

$ 130.8 $ 14.5

$ 116.3 $ 14.5

$ 101.8 $ 14.5

$ 87.2 $ 14.5

$ 72.7 $ 14.5

$ 58.2 $ 14.5

$ 43.6 $ 14.5

$ 29.1 $ 14.5

$ 14.5 $ 14.5

$ 0.0 $ 14.5

$