alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Επίσημη Εφημερίδα C 15I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0901 |
| --- | --- |
| Επίσημη Εφημερίδα
  της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | C 015I |
| | |
| Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα | Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες | 64ό έτος14 Ιανουαρίου 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0901

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα

της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

C 015I

Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα

Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες

64ό έτος14 Ιανουαρίου 2021

---

| Περιεχόμενα | Σελίδα |
| --- | --- |
| | Διορθωτικά |
| | Διορθωτικό στην κοινή δήλωση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, του Συμβουλίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, Νομοθετικές προτεραιότητες της ΕΕ για το 2021 ( EE C 451 I της 29.12.2020 ) | 1 |
| | Διορθωτικό στα κοινά συμπεράσματα του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, του Συμβουλίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής σχετικά με τους στόχους πολιτικής και τις προτεραιότητες για την περίοδο 2020-2024 ( EE C 451 I της 29.12.2020 ) | 2 |

Περιεχόμενα

Σελίδα

Διορθωτικά

Διορθωτικό στην κοινή δήλωση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, του Συμβουλίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, Νομοθετικές προτεραιότητες της ΕΕ για το 2021 ( EE C 451 I της 29.12.2020 )

( EE C 451 I της 29.12.2020 )

1

Διορθωτικό στα κοινά συμπεράσματα του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, του Συμβουλίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής σχετικά με τους στόχους πολιτικής και τις προτεραιότητες για την περίοδο 2020-2024 ( EE C 451 I της 29.12.2020 )

( EE C 451 I της 29.12.2020 )

2

---

| EL | |
| --- | --- |

EL

---

Διορθωτικά

| 14.1.2021 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | CI 15/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2021

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

CI 15/1

---

Διορθωτικό στην κοινή δήλωση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, του Συμβουλίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, Νομοθετικές προτεραιότητες της ΕΕ για το 2021

(
  Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης C 451 I της 29ης Δεκεμβρίου 2020
  )

(2021/C 15 I/01)

Η δημοσίευση (2021/C 451 I/01) στην σελίδα 1 είναι άκυρη.

---

| 14.1.2021 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | CI 15/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2021

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

CI 15/2

---

Διορθωτικό στα κοινά συμπεράσματα του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, του Συμβουλίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής σχετικά με τους στόχους πολιτικής και τις προτεραιότητες για την περίοδο 2020-2024

(
  Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης C 451 I της 29ης Δεκεμβρίου 2020
  )

(2021/C 15 I/02)

Η δημοσίευση (2021/C 451 I/02) στη σελίδα 4 είναι άκυρη.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 8 (Thursday, January 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1453-1454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00302]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifty Fifth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access 
Control Systems Plenary

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Fifty Fifth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access 
Control Systems Plenary.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of Fifty Fifth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security 
Access Control Systems Plenary.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 22, 2018 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th 
Street NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karan Hofmann at [email protected] or 
202-330-0680, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite 910, 
Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 
833-9434, or website at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of the Fifty Fifth RTCA SC-224 Standards for 
Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary. The agenda will 
include the following:

1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Review/Approve Previous Meeting Summary
3. Report on TSA Participation
4. Report on Document Distribution Mechanisms

[[Page 1454]]

5. Report on the New Guidelines and Other Safe Skies Reports
6. Discussion on DO-230I
7. Action Items for Next Meeting
8. Time and Place of Next Meeting
9. Any Other Business
10. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 5, 2018.
John Raper,
Manager, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17 (Acting), NextGen, 
Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-00302 Filed 1-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Frank Sorrentino III and William
S. Burns hereby jointly certify as follows:



They are the Chief Executive Officer and the
Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”);



To the best of their knowledge, the Company’s
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Report”) complies in all material respects with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



To the best of their knowledge, based upon
a review of the Report, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.





|Date:  April 14, 2014 | By: | /s/ Frank Sorrentino III            
|--------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------
|                      |     | Frank Sorrentino III                
|                      |     | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer





|Date:  April 14, 2014 | By: | /s/ William S. Burns                                        
|--------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |     | William S. Burns                                            
|                      |     | Executive Vice President and
        Chief Financial Officer
Richard HANCHETT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

CASE NO. 1D17-4541

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 21, 2017 Rehearing Denied December 29, 2017

Richard Hanchett, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

WETHERELL, RAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
EX PARTE Tommy Ray GANUS

CR-15-1213

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 24, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
Thad Alan COOPER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1973

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
EXHIBIT 10.56

Pro Acquisition Corporation

c/o HD Supply,
Inc.

3100 Cumberland Blvd., Suite 1700

Atlanta, GA 30330





August 10, 2007



Richard R. Fiechter

2455 Paces Ferry Road

Atlanta, Georgia 30339



| | Re: | Continued Employment with HD Supply, Inc. (Re-executed copy of original)
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Rich:

Reference is made
to your letter agreement, dated as of June 5, 2007, with HD Supply, Inc., The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

As you know, Pro Acquisition Corporation has entered into an agreement to acquire HD Supply, Inc., from The Home Depot, Inc. This letter
confirms that, upon and subject to the closing of the acquisition, your employment as an at-will employee will continue on the same terms as those in effect prior to closing. Specifically, after closing (i) your base salary and target annual
cash bonus opportunity will be not less than before closing, (ii) your principal place of employment will remain in the same metropolitan area, and (iii) you will report directly to Joe DeAngelo, HD Supplys Chief Executive Officer.

In addition, upon and subject to the closing of the acquisition, you will be covered by a severance arrangement that provides
a benefit of at least 12 months base salary continuation (at a rate not lower than your base salary on June 5, 2007).

We appreciate your service to HD Supply, and look forward to working with you in the future.

Very truly yours,

/s/ David A. Novak

Dave A. Novak

Co-President
COURT OF APPEALS

SANDEE BRYAN MARION

 CHIEF JUSTICE

KAREN ANGELINI

MARIALYN BARNARD

REBECA C. MARTINEZ

PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ

LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA

JASON K. PULLIAM

 JUSTICES

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER 

300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037

WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4THCOA.ASPX

KEITH E. HOTTLE 

CLERK OF COURT

TELEPHONE

(210) 335-2635

FACSIMILE NO.

(210) 335-2762

January 22, 2015

Jorge Vela

Druker Law Firm

1618 Chihuahua

Laredo, Texas 78043

Uriel Druker

Druker Law Firm

1618 Chihuahua

Laredo, Texas 78043

John F. Davis

Law Office of John F. Davis

6655 First Park Ten Blvd., Suite 250

San Antonio, Texas 78213

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-14-00016-CV

Trial Court Case Number: 2010CVT001822D3

Style: John F. Davis v. Farias Enterprises LTD.

Dear Counsel,

Please be advised the panel in this case has changed. The original panel was Chief 

Justice Stone, Justice Angelini, and Justice Martinez. Your updated panel consists of Justice 

Angelini, Justice Martinez, and Justice Pulliam. Your submission date remains the same.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to 

contact me.

 

Very truly yours,

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

_____________________________

Margaret E. Adams

Legal Assistant, Fourth Court of Appeals

210.335.3854
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
[LEGEND]
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Consolidated  Balance  Sheet  at  September 30, 2000 and Consolidated
Statement  of  Operations  for the three months ended September 30, 2000, and is
qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such  financial  statements.
[/LEGEND]
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       5,853
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,784
<ALLOWANCES>                                   535
<INVENTORY>                                  5,821
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,533
<PP&E>                                      33,546
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,464
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,235
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       541
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,919
<SALES>                                     10,148
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,312
<CGS>                                        5,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                55
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              69
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,644)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,794)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,794)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.030)


</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                        CONCURRENT COMPUTER CORPORATION
                                    EXHIBIT 11

              BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE COMPUTATION

                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED    NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                            MARCH 31, 2002       MARCH 31, 2002
                                          ------------------  --------------------
                                           BASIC    DILUTED     BASIC     DILUTED
                                          --------  --------  ---------  ---------
<S>                                       <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>
Average outstanding shares                  61,560    61,560    60,712     60,712
Dilutive effect of options and warrants          -     3,207         -          -
                                          --------  --------  ---------  ---------
Equivalent shares                           61,560    64,767    60,712     60,712
                                          ========  ========  =========  =========

Net income (loss)                         $  2,304  $  2,304  $   (650)  $   (650)
                                          ========  ========  =========  =========
Income (loss) per share                   $   0.04  $   0.04  $  (0.01)  $  (0.01)
                                          ========  ========  =========  =========


                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED    NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                            MARCH 31, 2001       MARCH 31, 2001
                                          ------------------  --------------------
                                           BASIC    DILUTED     BASIC     DILUTED
                                          --------  --------  ---------  ---------

Average outstanding shares                  55,021    55,021    54,558     54,558
Dilutive effect of options and warrants          -     2,104         -          -
                                          --------  --------  ---------  ---------
Equivalent shares                           55,021    57,125    54,558     54,558
                                          ========  ========  =========  =========

Net income (loss)                         $    571  $    571  $ (5,381)  $ (5,381)
                                          ========  ========  =========  =========
Loss per share                            $   0.01  $   0.01  $  (0.10)  $  (0.10)
                                          ========  ========  =========  =========
</TABLE>


                                      -22-
<PAGE>
#### Margo JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 04-3017.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: May 7, 2004.

Margo D. Johnson, Dolton, IL, pro se.

J. Reid Prouty, Principal Attorney, James M. Kinsella, David M. Cohen, of Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, MICHEL and LINN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Margo Johnson seeks review of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board affirming the decision of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) denying her application for disability retirement under the Federal Employees Retirement System (“FERS”) from the position of Distribution Clerk with the U.S. Postal Service. *Johnson v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,*No. CH844E020386-I-1, 95 M.S.P.R. 295, 2003 WL 22176822 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 16, 2003). Because Johnson’s appeal relies on evidence that is not in the record before us, we must *affirm.*

We affirm a decision of the board unless it is found to be “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (2000). We are “precluded by 5 U.S.C. § 8461(d) from reviewing the factual underpinnings of physical disability determinations, but may address whether there has been a ‘substantial departure from important procedural rights, a misconstruction of the governing legislation, or some like error going to the heart of the administrative determination.’ ” *Marino v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,*243 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2001) (quoting *Anthony v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,*58 F.3d 620, 626 (Fed.Cir.1995)).

Johnson asserts that the board erred in affirming OPM’s denial of disability retirement because it failed to take into account her “Social Security medical documentation” as well as the contents of a telephone interview with an unnamed psychiatrist. It is unclear from the record, however, whether the medical documentation considered by the board in its decision was in fact the Social Security medical documentation to which Johnson refers, whether it comprised merely a part of the Social Security medical documentation, or whether it was evidence submitted separately and distinctly from the Social Security medical documentation. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record concerning a telephone interview, nor does the record reflect that such evidence was properly before the board.

In sum, on appeal Johnson does not explicitly allege “a substantial departure from important procedural rights ... or some like error going to the heart of the administrative determination.” To the extent that she implies as much, given the principle that we are to construe *pro se*pleadings liberally, her lack of evidentiary support undermines her position. *See Hughes v. Rowe,*449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980). And we *296are statutorily precluded from conducting the review of the underlying facts that Johnson seeks.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

September 28, 2023

v No. 359936

Ogemaw Circuit Court

ANTHONY JEFFREY VOGEL, LC No. 19-005320-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and CAMERON, JJ.

SHAPIRO, P.J. (concurring).

I concur in affirming defendant’s convictions and sentences.

1

 I write separately to urge the 

Supreme Court to reexamine its holding in People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450; 818 NW2d 296 

(2012), that MCL 768.27a does not violate separation-of-power principles. This holding was 

supported by the Court’s conclusion that, despite the admissibility provided MCL 768.27a, a 

defendant was still shielded from overly-prejudicial evidence under MRE 403. See Watkins, 491 

Mich at 481-491. In practice, however, evidence meeting the statutory criteria is rarely, if ever, 

excluded pursuant to MRE 403. The likely reason is that the fundamental prejudice arising from 

such evidence is that it constitutes propensity evidence, but per Watkins, “when applying MRE 

403 to evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a, courts must weigh the propensity inference in 

favor of the evidence’s probative value rather than its prejudicial effect.” Watkins, 491 Mich at 

487. I also believe that the Supreme Court should review this Court’s holding in People v Payne, 

304 Mich App 667, 676; 850 NW2d 601 (2014), that the 25-year mandatory minimum prescribed 

by MCL 750.520b(2)(b) does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment as applied to juvenile 

offenders. The Supreme Court has not yet addressed this issue, and in light of People v Parks, 510 

 

1 While I disagree with the majority that defendant’s statements to the police denying the 

accusations were properly excluded, I conclude that any error on this matter was harmless. I agree 

with the majority opinion in all other respects.
-2-

Mich 225; 987 NW2d 161 (2022), mandatory lengthy sentences of minors are of questionable 

constitutionality.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
Arthur Lee SISSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-3547

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
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 of Tri-Tech Holding Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2010 (the Report), I, Warren Zhao, 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:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|               |  |                        
|-------------- |  | -----------------------
|March 24, 2010 |  | /s/    Warren Zhao     
|               |  | Warren Zhao            
|               |  | Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 16, 2009.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

*1. Martin C. Bicknell*, Bucyrus, Kansas; to acquire control of University National Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire control of University National Bank, both in Pittsburg, Kansas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 27, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-7272 Filed 3-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S