alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 60/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 60 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 515 March 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 60

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 515 March 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Council |
| 2008/C 060/01 | Council Decision of 25 February 2008 appointing the Luxembourg member of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training | 1 |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 060/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Council

2008/C 060/01

Council Decision of 25 February 2008 appointing the Luxembourg member of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

1

Commission

2008/C 060/02

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 060/03 | General Programme ‘Security and Safeguarding Liberties’ — Specific Programme ‘Prevention, preparedness and consequence management of terrorism and other security-related risks’ — Action grants | 3 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 060/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5044 — Bridgepoint/Pret a Manger) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 4 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Commission

2008/C 060/03

General Programme ‘Security and Safeguarding Liberties’ — Specific Programme ‘Prevention, preparedness and consequence management of terrorism and other security-related risks’ — Action grants

3

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2008/C 060/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5044 — Bridgepoint/Pret a Manger) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Charlton OLIVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2386

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 21.1**

**KKR Financial Corp.**

**List ofSubsidiaries**

| **Company**                                | ** ** | ** **     | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorporation  or Formation** |
|--------------------------------------------|------------|----------------|------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| KKR TRS  Holdings, Inc.               |       | Delaware       |
| KKR Financial CLO 2005-1,  Ltd.            |       | Cayman Islands |
| KKR Financial CLO 2005-2,  Ltd.            |       | Cayman Islands |
| KKR Financial CLO 2006-1,  Ltd.            |       | Cayman Islands |
| KKR Financial CLO 2006-2,  Ltd.            |       | Cayman Islands |
| KKR Financial CDO 2005-1,  Ltd.            |       | Cayman Islands |
| KKR Financial Mortgage  Corp.              |       | Maryland       |
| KKR QRS #1, Inc.                      |       | Delaware       |
| KKR Pacific Funding  Trust                 |       | Delaware       |
| KKR Pacific Funding Depositor  Corporation |       | Delaware       |
| KFN PEI I, LLC                             |       | Delaware       |
| KFN PEI II, LLC                            |       | Delaware       |
| KFN PEI III, LLC                           |       | Delaware       |
| KFN PEI IV, LLC                            |       | Delaware       |

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             248
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       45
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,247
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,619
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,499
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,733
<OTHER-SE>                                   (182,613)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,619
<SALES>                                          5,779
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,779
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,550
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,771)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,771)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,930
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,841
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        




</TABLE>
Randy A. REDFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1353

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 1, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7363

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PHILLIP LAMONT DRAKE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:09-cr-00950-TLW-3; 4:12-cv-03659-TLW)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Lamont Drake, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher Sherard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Lamont Drake seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion, and has filed motions for appointment of counsel, to 

place his appeal in abeyance, and for leave to file a 

supplemental informal brief. The district court’s order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Drake has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

grant Drake’s motion for leave to file a supplemental informal 
3

brief, deny as moot his motion to place his appeal in abeyance,

deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate 

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                12,934
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      2,469,980
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                        3,709,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   6,398,512
<PP&E>                             8,271,689
<DEPRECIATION>                     2,730,159
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    11,943,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              3,919,239
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 29,298
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                         4,585,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      11,943,645
<SALES>                            4,217,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   4,245,923
<CGS>                              3,397,381
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      4,121,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      98,254
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    98,254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       25,902
<INCOME-TAX>                           9,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   16,302
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                          16,302
<EPS-BASIC>                           0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.01



</TABLE>
Robert WILLOUGHBY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. MADISON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE/DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. 1D17-2602

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 3, 2018

Mark L. Zientz of Law Offices of Mark L. Zientz, P.A., for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Hinda Klein of Conroy Simberg, Hollywood, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Per Curiam.

In this workers' compensation case, Claimant appeals, and the Employer/Carrier (E/C) cross-appeals, an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) declining, in part, to approve a stipulated E/C-paid attorney's fee, approving a reduced fee amount, and ordering that the balance of the monies be remitted to Claimant personally. The JCC's ruling was based on his findings of fact regarding the reasonableness of the attorney's fee. The record before us does not support those findings. Therefore, just as in the recently published *Gomez v. Frank Crum, Inc.* , 228 So.3d 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), and *Banegas v. ACR Environmental, Inc.* , 228 So.3d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), we find reversible error.

Accordingly, we REVERSE the portion of the order reducing the agreed upon attorney's fee, as well as the portion of the order reforming the stipulation, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Wolf, Osterhaus, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
Anthony J. FAILS, Appellant, v. Julie JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 1D16-4558

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2018

Anthony J. Fails, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee; Kenneth Steely, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

By habeas corpus petition, Appellant challenged his 2004 Escambia County judgment and sentence, claiming error in the witness affidavit and arrest warrant. Appellant's claims are meritless, and the lower court properly dismissed his habeas petition. We make no further comment on that.

We write, however, to address Appellant's repeated violations of this Court's orders barring him from pro se filings related to his 2004 Escambia County judgment and sentence. In 2010 this Court barred Appellant from pro se filings related to his case. *Fails v. State* , 46 So.3d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (mem.). Undeterred, Appellant filed seven more cases. In 2014 this Court again sanctioned Appellant, referred him to the Department of Corrections for discipline, and warned him further violation could result in a complete pro se bar. *Fails v. State* , 137 So.3d 623, 623-24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Still undeterred, Appellant filed this meritless appeal of the lower court's proper dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. Moreover, in this appeal, Appellant has engaged in frivolous and excessive motion practice, filing at least twenty-two different motions seeking unwarranted, unavailable, and often incomprehensible relief. This Court granted none, and hereby denies all pending motions without further order or comment.

We find Appellant's present appeal frivolous. We direct a certified copy of this opinion be provided to the Department of Corrections to be forwarded to the appropriate institution or facility for disciplinary procedures pursuant to section 944.279, Florida Statutes. As we have twice before, we bar Appellant from filing any more pleadings in this Court challenging his 2004 Escambia County judgment and sentence, unless represented by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.

Further, in light of Appellant's repeat violations of this Court's orders, continued waste of this Court's finite resources to timely review legitimate filings, and failure to heed this Court's multiple warnings, we bar Appellant from all pro se filings in this Court, not just those directed at his 2004 Escambia County judgment and sentence. *See**Pettway v. McNeil* , 987 So.2d 20, 22-23 (Fla. 2008) (explaining each frivolous, repetitive filing detracts from legitimate claims and litigants and drains a court's already scarce resources). We direct the Clerk of this Court not to accept any additional filings from Appellant, unless he is represented by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.

Accordingly, as barred and unauthorized, we DISMISS Appellant's appeal, bar *801him from all pro se filings in this Court, and refer him to the Department for appropriate disciplinary action.

Lewis, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
EX PARTE Ronnie FAGAN

CR-15-1198

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Lawrence Cir. Ct.
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of VioSolar Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending July 31, 2007, and as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rick Walchuk, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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; and



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











By: /s/ Rick Walchuk

Name: Rick Walchuk

Title: President, Director and Chief Executive Officer









Date:

September 23, 2008
Kristofer GOULD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3708

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.43

 

AMENDMENT #5

 

To Letter of Intent for Proposed CRADA #2166

 

“Preclinical and Clinical Development of 1-Methyl [d]-Tryptophan as an
 Anticancer Agent”

 

The purpose of this Amendment is to change certain terms of the Letter of Intent (LOI) for the proposed Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) entitled “Preclinical and Clinical Development of 1-Methyl [d]-Tryptophan as an Anticancer Agent.”  These changes are reflected below, and except for these changes, all other provisions of the original CRADA LOI remain in full force and effect.  Two originals of this Amendment are provided for execution; one is to remain with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the other original is to remain with the Collaborator.

 

Upon final signature, the term of the CRADA Letter of Intent is extended for six months from November 23, 2009 to May 23, 2010.

 

 

	
ACCEPTED   AND AGREED TO:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
For   the National Cancer Institute:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	

    	
 
    	

    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Anna   D. Barker, Ph.D.
    	
 
    	
Date
    
	
Deputy   Director, NCI
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
For   NewLink Genetics Corporation:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	

    	
 
    	

    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Nicholas   Vahanian, M.D.
    	
 
    	
Date
    
	
Chief   Operating Officer
Nelson ROJAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-1809

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 906CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBNES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Electronic Systems Technology Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, TomL. Kirchner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Jon Correio, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 
/s/ TOM L KIRCHNER/s/ JON CORREIOTom L. KirchnerJon Correio
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial OfficerDate: November 7, 2005Date: November 7, 2005
Letter of Extension of Change in Control Severance Agreement - Atkinson



 EXHIBIT 10.24 
  

					
		 		  	One Chase Manhattan Plz
		 		  	New York, NY 10005
		 		  	 Phone: 212.859.7000
  
 www.assurant.com


 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL 
 December 15, 2006 
 Jerome Atkinson 
 Assurant, Inc. 
 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza 
 New York, NY 10005 
 Re: Extension of Change in Control Severance Agreement 
 Dear Jerome, 
 You are presently covered by a Change in Control Severance Agreement (“CIC Agreement”) with
Assurant, Inc. (the “Company”) that may provide certain benefits to you in the event that a Change in Control (as defined in the CIC Agreement) occurs. The CIC Agreement, as amended, was due to expire on December 31, 2006. 

As permitted by Section 1(a) of the CIC Agreement, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has authorized the Company to extend the term of the CIC
Agreement for two years, through December 31, 2008. 
 As always, we appreciate your dedication to Assurant. If you have any questions or concerns,
please feel free to contact me. 
 Sincerely, 
  

	
	 /s/ Robert B. Pollock

	Robert B. Pollock
	Chief Executive Officer

 In New York state, Assurant, Inc. does business under the name Assurant Group.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Fischer Imaging Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Kirwan, ChiefFinancial 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)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 15, 2005 | /s/ DAVID KIRWAN           |   |
|----------------------------|----------------------------|--------|
|                       | David Kirwan               |   |
|                       | *Chief  Financial Officer* |   |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to FischerImaging Corporation and will be retained by Fischer Imaging Corporation andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
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





The undersigned, Keith Diakiw, President and Chief Executive Officer of Rush Metals Corporation (the “Company”), certify, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year  ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results of operations of the Company.





Dated: June 30, 2011





By:              /s/ Keith Diakiw


Name:              Keith Diakiw


Title:              Director, Chairman, President and Chief Executive and Operating Officer and Secretary


(Principal Executive Officer


and Principal Financial Officer)








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Global Clean Energy, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010 (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:  May
      17, 2010
            /s/
      Kenneth S. AdesskyKenneth
      S. Adessky, Chief Financial Officer
STATE of Louisiana v. Willie C. PLATER

NO. 2017-KP-1021

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 2018

Denied.