alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018298EN.01031501.xml

| 23.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/315 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/315

---

P8_TA(2017)0119

Automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Slovakia, Portugal, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Cyprus, Poland, Sweden, Malta and Belgium *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 5 April 2017 on the draft Council implementing decision on the automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Slovakia, Portugal, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Cyprus, Poland, Sweden, Malta and Belgium and replacing Decisions 2010/689/EU, 2011/472/EU, 2011/715/EU, 2011/887/EU, 2012/58/EU, 2012/299/EU, 2012/445/EU, 2012/673/EU, 2013/3/EU, 2013/148/EU, 2013/152/EU and 2014/410/EU (13525/2016 — C8-0522/2016 — 2016/0819(CNS))

(Consultation)

(2018/C 298/39)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Council draft (13525/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council draft (13525/2016),

| — | having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0522/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0522/2016),

| — | having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,

| — | having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0091/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0091/2017),

| 1. | Approves the Council draft; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

---

(1)  OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1.

---
No. 09-5220.

#### Arlene B. Whitney, Petitioner v. California, et al.

559 U.S. 974, 130 S. Ct. 1685,

176 L. Ed. 2d 185,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2092.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Patriot Scientific Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2011 (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date: August 29, 2011


/s/ CLIFFORD L. FLOWERS

Clifford L. Flowers

Interim Chief Executive Officer

and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Patriot Scientific Corporation and will be retained by Patriot Scientific Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This Certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 15(d) and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This Certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
No. 11-7790.

#### Ruel Salva Mercado, Petitioner v. James G. Cox, Director, Nevada Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 1182, 132 S. Ct. 1154,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1026,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 988.

January 23, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eon Labs,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Bernhard Hampl, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ Bernhard Hampl, Ph.D. |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Bernhard Hampl, Ph.D.     |
|   | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

May 7, 2004

 

1

----
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB)

FY 2014 Service Contract Inventory Report

Background: DNFSB is a small, independent agency (operating at 107 Full-time Equivalents 

(FTEs) in FY 2014) with responsibility for the oversight of the Department of Energy (DOE)’s 

defense nuclear facilities located throughout the United States. DNFSB’s mission as described 

by the Atomic Energy Act is to ensure that the public health and safety are adequately protected 

at the DOE defense nuclear facilities. Over 70% of DNFSB’s employees are engineers or 

scientists directly supporting its mission. DNFSB has a small administrative support staff 

responsible for the full range of administrative support functions, of whom approximately 1.5 

FTEs perform procurement (e.g., 1102) duties. DNFSB’s total obligations for supplies and 

services in FY 2014 were less than $4M.

Scope/Special Interest Functions Studied: DNFSB had limited obligations in special interest 

functions, only $200,000 under Engineering and Technical Services (R425). That special 

interest function was studied.

Methodology Used to Support the Analysis: As the special interest function only consisted of 

one (1) contract, members of the acquisition workforce working on each contract were 

interviewed.

Agency Findings:

1) DNFSB has no personal services contract obligations.

2) A review of the special interest function contracts indicated none of the work performed 

under Engineering and Technical Services was closely associated with inherently 

governmental functions, and thus no special management attention was necessary for that 

contract. 

3) A review of the special interest function contract indicated that DNFSB was not using 

contractor employees to perform inherently governmental functions.

4) DNFSB has specific safeguards in place to ensure that the work being performed by 

contractors under this special interest function has not changed or expanded during 

performance to become an inherently governmental function (e.g., the Contracting 

Officer reviews all deliverables).

5) A review of the special interest function contract indicated that DNFSB is not using 

contractor employees to perform critical functions in such a way that could affect the 

ability of the agency to maintain control of its mission and operations.

6) There are sufficient internal agency resources to manage and oversee contracts 

effectively. 

Explanation of Action Taken or Planned to Resolve Identified Weaknesses: NA, no 

weaknesses identified.

Accountable Officials: The analysis was performed by DNFSB’s senior Contracting Officer 

and has been concurred with by DNFSB’s General Manager. He is the DNFSB official who is 

accountable for the development of agency policies, procedures, and training associated with 

OFPP Policy Letter 11-01 and for ensuring appropriate internal management attention is given to 

the development and analysis of service contract inventories.
No. 09-8480.

#### Mack Arthur Davis, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 958, 130 S. Ct. 1555,

176 L. Ed. 2d 143,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1385.

February 22, 2010.

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

*144Same case below, 583 F.3d 1081.
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. 08-11094

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SERGIO MARQUEZ-MENDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-75-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sergio Marquez-Mendoza (Marquez) appeals his guilty plea conviction and

sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He

argues that his case should be remanded so the district court can consider the

disparity created by early disposition programs. He also contends that the

selective implementation of “fast-track” programs violates the Equal Protection

Clause. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal, for summary

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-11094

2

affirmance, or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file an appellate

brief. 

As Marquez concedes, his appellate arguments are foreclosed by our

precedent. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 563 n.4 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 624 (2008); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 624 (2008). He raises these arguments solely

to preserve them for further review.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government’s

motion to dismiss the appeal and its alternative motion for an extension of time

to file an appellate brief are DENIED.
# C_2017441EN.01000102.xml

| 22.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 441/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8717 — Engie/IPM Energy Trading/International Power Fuel Company)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 441/02)

On 15 December 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 32017M8717. 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 32017M8717. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
No. 09-5694.

#### Robert L. Bolden, Sr., Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 964, 130 S. Ct. 1571,

176 L. Ed. 2d 154,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1052.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1077, 130 S. Ct. 796, 175 L. Ed. 2d 561, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 8753.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 1698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-483]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel, Childhood Obesity RFA HD-08-023.
    Date: February 6, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military 
Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.
    Contact Person: Michele C. Hindi-Alexander, PhD, Division of 
Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy 
Shriver, National Institute For Child Health & Development, 6100 
Executive Boulevard, Room 5b01, Bethesda, MD 20812-7510, (301) 435-
8382, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f99190979d90989594b994989095d7979091d79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="630b0a0d070a020f0e230e020a0f4d0d0a0b4d040c15">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 7, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-483 Filed 1-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
POWER OF ATTORNEY
   Signature
    
    Capacity
    
    Date/s/ MICHAEL N. CHRISTODOLOU
    
    Chairman of the BoardMichael N. Christodolou
    
    of Directors
    
    October 23,
2008/s/ HOWARD G. BUFFETT
    
    Director
    
    October 23, 2008Howard G. Buffett/s/ W. THOMAS JAGODINSKI
    
    Director
    
    October 27, 2008W. Thomas Jagodinski/s/ J. DAVID MCINTOSH
    
    Director
    
    October 24, 2008J. David McIntosh/s/ MICHAEL C. NAHL
    
    Director
    
    October 23, 2008Michael C. Nahl/s/ WILLIAM F. WELSH II
    
    Director
    
    October 27, 2008William F. Welsh II
 65
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-446

LT Case No. 2013-DR-002635-FM

_____________________________

JACQUELINE VARNER,

Petitioner,

v.

BRIAN VARNER,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the

Circuit Court for Duval County.

Suzanne Bass, Judge.

Jason Brian Phillips, of J. Brian Phillips, P.A., Orlando, for 

Petitioner.

Beth M. Terry, of Law Office of B.M. Terry, P.A., Jacksonville, for 

Respondent.

October 6, 2023

PER CURIAM.

Former Wife petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari 

seeking to quash the trial court’s order regarding child visitation

dated November 14, 2022. Former Wife alleges this court has 

jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 4(b)(3), of the Florida

Constitution, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(3),
2

which confer original jurisdiction upon district courts of appeal to 

issue writs of common law certiorari. However, nonfinal orders 

that determine “the rights or obligations of a party regarding child 

custody or time-sharing under a parenting plan” are appealable 

under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)b. “A 

‘child custody proceeding’ is defined as one in which legal custody, 

physical custody, residential care, or visitation with respect to a 

child is at issue.” Hickey v. Burlinson, 33 So. 3d 827, 829 (Fla 5th 

DCA 2010) (citing § 61.503(4), Fla. Stat. (2009)). Therefore, an 

order regarding child visitation is an appealable, nonfinal order. 

Id. As a result, we treat this matter as an appeal of a nonfinal order 

rather than a petition for writ of certiorari and affirm on all issues

without further discussion.1

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, BOATWRIGHT, and PRATT, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

1 See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c) (“If a party seeks an improper 

remedy, the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had 

been sought . . . .”).
No. 09-9435.

#### Manuel T. Ruffin, Petitioner v. North Carolina Department of Corrections.

559 U.S. 1111, 130 S. Ct. 2428,

176 L. Ed. 2d 931,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3838.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 351 Fed. Appx. 841.
No. 09-8002.

#### Osvaldo Javier Torres, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

559 U.S. 1033, 130 S. Ct. 1946,

176 L. Ed. 2d 410,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2384.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 912, 130 S. Ct. 1301, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1089, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 918.
No. 09-8545.

#### Lazzerick Alexander, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 960, 130 S. Ct. 1560,

176 L. Ed. 2d 147,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1339.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 573 F.3d 465.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Amincor, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2011 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on November 21, 2011 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

     1.   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 results of operation of
          the Company.


Date: November 21, 2011                 /s/ Robert L. Olson
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Robert L. Olson, Chief Financial Officer
No. 09-9833.

#### Salvador Avila-Rivera, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1100, 130 S. Ct. 2393,

176 L. Ed. 2d 783,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3624.

April 26, 2010.

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

Same case below, 359 Fed. Appx. 841.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00424

- CV

In re Jerry Lively

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

_______________________ ___________________

Melissa Goodwin , Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith

Filed: September 15 , 2021
No. 09-8597.

#### Yolanda Carlile, Petitioner v. Kansas.

559 U.S. 1013, 130 S. Ct. 1895,

176 L. Ed. 2d 376,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2699.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas denied.

Same case below, 217 P.3d 985.
No. 09-9211.

#### Ella B. Vinson, Petitioner v. Ohio.

559 U.S. 1042, 130 S. Ct. 2075,

176 L. Ed. 2d 424,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2900.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Franklin County, denied.
----

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, 

| (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. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                        |                   |                      |
|-----------------------------|------------------------|---------------------------|
|                        | STUDIO ONE MEDIA, INC. |
|                        |                   |                      |
| Date: November 4, 2011 | By:          | /s/  Preston J. Shea |
|                        | Preston J. Shea        |
|                        | President              |

----
**Exhibit 10.41**

 

Description of Executive Retiree Life Insurance Benefit 

for Corporate Officers 

 

Officers who retire on or after attainment of age 55 with at least ten years of service with the company are eligible for company paid retiree life insurance. The amount of the life insurance benefit is equal to one times Annual Earnings.Annual Earnings is defined as the individual’s base salary at retirement, plus the average of the individual’s last three payments under the annual incentive program or, if higher, the average of any earlier three year average of annualincentive payouts. 

 

All group life insurance coverage is subject to IRSregulations under which the company provided life insurance in excess of $50,000 will be multiplied by a factor related to the individual’s age, furnished by the IRS, to arrive at the imputed income that the participant realizes from the lifeinsurance benefit. The imputed income is added to the participant’s taxable earnings. The participant may avoid the imputed income by electing to have the life insurance coverage limited to $50,000 (or any subsequent limit imposed by the IRS).