alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016115EN.01000301.xml

| 1.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/3

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya apply

(2016/C 115/03)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):

1

The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 (2).

2

The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director-General of DG C (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is the Unit 1C of DG C that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DGC 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DGC 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/44.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the statement of reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (3).

3

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

---

(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2016, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.

3

---
No. 09-8182.

#### Diego Nunez, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

559 U.S. 977, 130 S. Ct. 1697,

176 L. Ed. 2d 190,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2055.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350 (ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)**

In connection with the periodic report of Quantum Fuel SystemsTechnologies Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, William B. Olson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1)          the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at thedates and for the periods indicated. 

| Date: March 17, 2003 |   | /s/  WILLIAM B. OLSON               |
|---------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                      |   |                                               |
|                      |   | **William B. Olson, Chief Financial Officer** |
No. 11-672.

#### David Bobby, Warden, Petitioner v. Joe D’Ambrosio.

565 U.S. 1185, 132 S. Ct. 1150,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 1021.

181 L. Ed. 2d 1031,

January 23, 2012.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 656 F.3d 379.
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4786 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2006 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 535 Wood Street in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 

as the ‘‘H. Gordon Payrow Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

HR 4786 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 535 Wood Street in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘H. Gordon Payrow 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘H. Gordon Payrow Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 28, 

2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10081

Summary Calendar

 

BERNARD J. DOLENZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JUDGE TED MARTIN AKIN, JOHN

EARNEST BOUNDY, and MILDRED AVERY,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3-95-CV-1605

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1997

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bernard Dolenz appeals the dismissal of his § 1983 complaint

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c). We have

reviewed the record, and, for substantially the same reasons

stated by the district court, we affirm the dismissal. See

Dolenz v. Akin, No. 3:95-CV-1605-P (N.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 1996 and

Jan. 14, 1997).
No. 97-10081

-2-

The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing

to allow Dolenz to engage in further discovery pending its

determination of the referenced motions to dismiss. Richardson

v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990); Elliott v. Perez,

751 F.2d 1472, 1478 (5th Cir. 1985). As for Dolenz’s state-law

claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those

claims. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1344 (5th Cir.

1994). 

AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3067 LARRY M. DOW,

Petitioner,

v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

SF3443020159-X-1. ON MOTION ORDER Larry M. Dow moves without opposition for reconsideration of the court's January 15, 2009 order dismissing his petition for review for failure to submit a Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement concerning discrimination. Dow has now submitted the Rule 15(c) form. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted, the mandate is recalled, and the petition for review is reinstated. Dow's brief is due within 30 days of the date of filing of this order. FOR THE COURT 

# FEB 2 6 2009 is/ Jan Horbaly Date
cc: Michael J. Kator, Esq. Meredyth Cohen Havasy, Esq. Jan Horbaly Clerk 

### FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT s17 FEB 2 6 2009
JAN NNW CLERK
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-7170 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HERBERT COUNCIL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (3:92-cr-00097-GCM)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 24, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herbert Council, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Herbert Council appeals the district court’s order

denying his “Motion for the Court to Enter an Order for Immediate

Relief.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Council, No. 3:92-cr-00097-GCM (W.D.N.C.

July 24, 2007). We deny Council’s motion for bail pending appeal

and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 38 (Friday, February 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 8983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4212]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLAZ9120000 L12200000 AL0000 6100.241A0]


State of Arizona Resource Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Arizona Resource Advisory Council Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Arizona 
Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet on March 26, 2009, at the 
BLM National Training Center located at 9828 North 31st Avenue in 
Phoenix from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Morning agenda items include: 
Review and approval of the September 18, 2008, meeting minutes for RAC 
and Recreation Resource Advisory Council (RRAC) business; BLM State 
Director's update on statewide issues; Update on Solar Energy Rights-
of-Way Applications; Presentation on the Healthy Lands Initiative 
Projects and Wild Horse and Burro Program in Arizona; RAC questions on 
BLM Field Managers' Rangeland Resource Team proposals; and reports by 
RAC working groups. A public comment period will be provided at 11:30 
a.m. on March 26, 2009, for any interested publics who wish to address 
the Council on BLM programs and business.
    Under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, the RAC has 
been designated as the RRAC, and has the authority to review all BLM 
and Forest Service (FS) recreation fee proposals in Arizona. The 
afternoon meeting agenda on March 26, will include a presentation on 
the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act requirements, a review and 
discussion of the Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) Working Group 
Report, future BLM/FS recreation fee proposals and REA Working Group 
meeting schedule.

DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Stevens, Bureau of Land 
Management, Arizona State Office, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427, 602-417-9504.

Helen Hankins,
Acting Arizona State Director.
 [FR Doc. E9-4212 Filed 2-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-P
No. 09-8984.

#### Nicole Sebro, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1019, 130 S. Ct. 1915,

176 L. Ed. 2d 387,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2528.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2017278EN.01000201.xml

| 22.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8556 — Carlyle/GTCR/Albany Molecular Research)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 278/03)

On 16 August 2017, 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 32017M8556. 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 32017M8556. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a) OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Michael Cannon, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this amendment to annual report on Form 10-K/A of Solectron
Corporation;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 officer 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)
    Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition
instructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986;(c)
    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(d)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred
during the period covered by the annual report 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 and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the 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: April 14, 2005 /s/ Michael Cannon
Michael Cannon
President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 09-8692.

#### Darren Eugene Hankerson, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 984, 130 S. Ct. 1717,

176 L. Ed. 2d 200,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1959.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4932 

To require businesses operating a call center to either initiate or receive 

telephone calls to disclose the location of such call center, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2006 

Mr. STRICKLAND introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require businesses operating a call center to either initiate 

or receive telephone calls to disclose the location of such 

call center, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Call Center Consumer 

5 Right to Know Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CALL CENTER REQUIREMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—A United States corporation or its 

8 subsidiaries that utilizes a call center to initiate telephone 

9 calls to, or receive telephone calls from, individuals located 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4932 IH 

1 in the United States, shall disclose the location, including 

2 the city and State or country, of the employee initiating 

3 or receiving each telephone call at the beginning of each 

4 telephone call so initiated or received. 

5 (b) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—A corporation 

6 or subsidiary described in subsection (a) shall annually 

7 certify to the Federal Trade Commission whether or not 

8 the corporation or subsidiary, and the employees of the 

9 corporation or subsidiary at its call centers, have complied 

10 with that subsection. 

11 (c) NONCOMPLIANCE.—A corporation or subsidiary 

12 that violates subsection (a) shall be subject to such civil 

13 penalties as the Federal Trade Commission prescribes 

14 under section 3. 

15 (d) CALL CENTER DEFINED.—In this section, the 

16 term ‘‘call center’’ means a location that provides cus17 tomer-based service and sales assistance or technical as18 sistance and expertise to individuals located in the United 

19 States via telephone, the Internet, or other telecommuni20 cations and information technology. 

21 SEC. 3. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION RULES. 

22 Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment 

23 of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall prescribe 

24 rules to provide for effective monitoring and compliance 

25 with this Act. The Federal Trade Commission’s ruleVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:38 Mar 10, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4932.IH H4932

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4932 IH 

1 making shall include appropriate civil penalties for non2 compliance with this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
No. 11-382.

#### Jack Palmer, Warden, Petitioner v. Rickey Dennis Cooper.

565 U.S. 1015, 132 S. Ct. 558,

181 L. Ed. 2d 398,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7938.

November 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 641 F.3d 322.
No. 09-8269.

#### Pyotr Valeryevich Shmelev, Petitioner v. Minnesota.

559 U.S. 952, 130 S. Ct. 1538,

176 L. Ed. 2d 134,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1453.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota denied.
No. 09-8578.

#### Cekoven Johnson, Petitioner v. Robert A. Horel, Warden.

559 U.S. 1012, 130 S. Ct. 1893,

176 L. Ed. 2d 375,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2589.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 851.
#### William Tyndall, *Appellant,*v. Robert J. Garlick, and George Rezac, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed February 24, 1926.

*M. S. Bobst*and W. *F. Brown,*for Appellant;

*Shutts & Bowen,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for *320the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4882 

To ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam 

War by providing a deadline for the designation of a visitor center 

for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2006 

Mr. POMBO (for himself, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. PEARCE, and Mrs. CHRISTENSEN) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam veterans and 

the Vietnam War by providing a deadline for the designation of a visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 

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 ‘‘Vietnam Veterans Me5 morial Visitor Center Deadline Enforcement Act’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

HR 4882 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DEADLINE. 

2 Section 6 of Public Law 96–297 (as added by Public 

3 Law 108–126) is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(e) DEADLINE.—Notwithstanding any other law, 

6 the visitor center authorized by subsection (a) shall be lo7 cated in the open land in the triangular land area between 

8 Henry Bacon Drive, 23rd Street, Constitution Avenue, 

9 and the Lincoln Memorial, and final approval of the visitor 

10 center shall occur no later than 30 days following enact11 ment of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center 

12 Deadline Enforcement Act.’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS