alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2017344EN.01003701.xml

| 23.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 344/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 344/37

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2017/2436

of 18 December 2017

appointing a member, proposed by the Italian Republic, of the European Economic and Social Committee

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Italian Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 18 September 2015 and 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 (1) and (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 (2) appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 18 September 2015 and 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 (1) and (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 (2) appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020.

| (2) | A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Giancarlo DURANTE, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Giancarlo DURANTE,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Giovanni SABATINI, Direttore Generale dell'ABI (Associazione Bancaria Italiana), is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2020.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 18 December 2017.

For the Council

The President

K. SIMSON

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 of 18 September 2015 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020 (OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 53).

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 of 1 October 2015 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020 (OJ L 260, 7.10.2015, p. 23).

2

---
Dwayne JOHNSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0482

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 31, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 196 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 196

Designating May 5, 2021, as the ``National Day of Awareness for Missing 
                 and Murdered Native Women and Girls''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 29, 2021

    Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
    Lankford, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Schatz, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Crapo) 
 submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Designating May 5, 2021, as the ``National Day of Awareness for Missing 
                 and Murdered Native Women and Girls''.

Whereas, according to a study commissioned by the Department of Justice, in some 
        Tribal communities, American Indian women face murder rates that are 
        more than 10 times the national average murder rate;
Whereas, according to the most recently available data from the Centers for 
        Disease Control and Prevention, in 2017, homicide was the sixth leading 
        cause of death for American Indian and Alaska Native females between 1 
        and 44 years of age;
Whereas little data exist on the number of missing American Indian, Alaska 
        Native, and Native Hawaiian women in the United States;
Whereas, on July 5, 2013, Hanna Harris, a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, 
        was reported missing by her family in Lame Deer, Montana;
Whereas the body of Hanna Harris was found 5 days after she went missing;
Whereas Hanna Harris was determined to have been raped and murdered, and the 
        individuals accused of committing those crimes were convicted;
Whereas the case of Hanna Harris is an example of many similar cases; and
Whereas Hanna Harris was born on May 5, 1992: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates May 5, 2021, as the ``National Day of 
        Awareness for Missing and Murdered Native Women and Girls''; 
        and
            (2) calls on the people of the United States and interested 
        groups--
                    (A) to commemorate the lives of missing and 
                murdered American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native 
                Hawaiian women whose cases are documented and 
                undocumented in public records and the media; and
                    (B) to demonstrate solidarity with the families of 
                victims in light of those tragedies.
                                 <all>
```
J.F. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2170051

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

Affirmed.
# m8474.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 15.6.2017 C(2017) 4253 final To the notifying part y: Subject : Case M.8474 - HNA / CWT Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 18 May 2017 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which HNA Group Co., Ltd. ("HNA Group", China) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over CWT Limited ("CWT", Singapore), by way of a voluntary conditional offer. 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - HNA Group: conglomerate with investments in airlines, real estate and hodings , hotels, shipping, logistics, capital management, ecological technology and leasing companies. The core focus of HNA Group is China and the Asia region, and with activities in the European Union. - CWT: is a corporation listed on the Mainboard of the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited that provides integrated logistics solutions and related services ancilliary to its core logistics business. The majority of its activities are in Asia Pacific. In the European Union, CWT's activities relate mainly to logistics services and commodity marketing. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragrap h 5 ( c ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission
(S igned)
Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 16 9 , 30.5. 2017 , p. 50 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
Retention Bonus Agrmt- NYCB, Roslyn Bancorp, Roslyn Savings Bank & John Klag



 EXHIBIT 10.14 
  
 New York Community Bancorp, Inc. 
 615
Merrick Avenue 
 Westbury, New York 11590 
  

June 27, 2003 
  
 John L. Klag 
 The Roslyn Savings Bank 
 One Jericho Plaza 
 Jericho, New York 11753-8905 
  
 Dear John: 
  
 I am pleased to have this opportunity to set forth in writing certain
additional information relating to your employment at New York Community Bank (the “Bank”) following the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) entered between
New York Community Bancorp, Inc. (the “Holding Company”) and Roslyn Bancorp, Inc. on this date. This letter is intended to supplement your new employment agreement with the Holding Company. 
  
 At such time as you become an employee of the Bank under your new employment
agreement as a result of the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement, you will receive a retention bonus of $600,000. However, if you voluntarily terminate employment prior to the completion of 365 days of employment after the Effective Time
other than by reason of an “Event of Termination” (as defined in your new employment agreement), or if you are terminated for “Just Cause” (as defined in your new employment agreement) within such 365-day period, you will
immediately return to the Holding Company a portion of the retention bonus equal to the product of (x) the retention bonus and (y) a fraction the numerator of which is the total number of days remaining in such 365-day period and the denominator of
which is 365. 







 Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Merger Agreement is terminated pursuant to Article VI of the Merger
Agreement, this letter agreement will be null and void. 
  
 Please
acknowledge the foregoing in the space indicated below. 
  

	 Sincerely,

	
	 /s/ Joseph R. Ficalora


	 Joseph R. Ficalora
 President and Chief Executive Officer



  

	 Acknowledged and Agreed:

	
	 /s/ John L. Klag


	 John L. Klag


  
  

 2
Nelson CINTRON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1517

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 1, 2019.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Warren A. Zimmerman, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy and Jonathan S. Tannen, Assistant Attorneys General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
CLEMENTE ARIAS

- LUNA , Petitioner.
No. 1 CA

- CR 19

- 0190 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014

- 112498

- 001 The Honorable Teresa Sanders , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL
Clemente Arias

- Luna , Florence Petitioner Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office , Phoenix By Amanda M. Parker C ounsel for Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma , Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 12-5-2019STATE v. ARIAS

- LUNA Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner name seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. 1. This is petitioner's second petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner 's burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have re viewed the record in this matter, the superior court's order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.
Exhibit 10.1


 


ASSIGNMENT AND AMENDMENT


 


WHEREAS,
Navigation Technologies Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“NT”) and
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., a public company incorporated under the
laws of The Netherlands, (“Philips”) are parties to a Deposit Agreement May 21,
2002 (the “Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, NT
desires to assign the Agreement to Navigation Technologies North America, LLC
(“NTNA”);


 


WHEREAS, NTNA
and Philips each desire to amend certain terms of the Agreement;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises set forth herein, the parties
hereto agree as follows:


 


1.                                       NT
hereby assigns the Agreement, and its rights and obligations thereto, to NTNA.


 


2.                                       Philips
hereby consents to the assignment of the Agreement by NT to NTNA.


 


3.                                       NTNA
hereby agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and
hereby assumes any and all obligations and liabilities under the Agreement.


 


4.                                       NTNA and Philips hereby agree to amend and
restate the first sentence of Section 3 as follows:


 


“Subject to Article 8 of this Agreement, the Facility shall expire on
May 21, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the Expiry Date”).”


 


5.                                       NTNA
and Philips hereby agree to amend article 7 (a) of the Agreement to read as
follows:


 


“Each Deposit shall bear interest calculated by reference to successive
interest periods, determined as hereinafter provided, each of which shall,
subject to Article 3, have a duration of a period of between 1 day and 365
days.”


 


6.                                       This
Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the law of the Netherlands. All
disputes arising out of and in connection with this Agreement shall be
submitted to the competent courts which
have jurisdiction.


 


* * *


 


1

















 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties have caused their duly authorized representatives to
execute this Agreement as of the        day of
May , 2003.


 


 


	
  NAVIGATION
  TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

  	 

	
   

  	 

	
   

  	 

	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Larry M. Kaplan

  	
   

  	 

	
  Its:

  	
  VP and General Counsel

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  NAVIGATION
  TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, LLC

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Larry M. Kaplan

  	
   

  
	
  Its:

  	
  VP and General Counsel

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  KONINKLIJKE
  PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ M.A. Spielman

  	
   

  
	
  Its:

  	
  Senior Vice President

  	
   

  
					



 


2
Isaac D. CASTILLO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 3D18-468 3D18-638

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 16, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00105-CV

New LifeCare Hospitals of South Texas, L.L.C.

v.

RCBS, L.P.

On appeal from the

370th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-3353-17-G

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Court 

orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its 

opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 29, 2018
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

RASIER-CA, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00003-HSG 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On January 3, 2017, Plaintiff Darryl Carter filed a pro se complaint against Defendants 

Raiser-CA LLC, and Uber Technologies, Inc. On September 15, 2017, the Court granted 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. See Dkt. No. 40. The Court instructed Plaintiff that he had until October 6, 2017, to file 

an amended complaint and cautioned that “[f]ailure to file an amended complaint by this deadline 

may result in the dismissal of the action without leave to amend.” Id. at 9. Plaintiff failed to file a 

timely amended complaint. Instead, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that he “does not, 

at this time, intend to file an amended pleading.” Dkt. No. 41 at 2.

The Court interprets Plaintiff’s notice to mean that he cannot allege facts to cure the 

defects identified in the Court’s previous order. See Dkt. Nos. 40. The Court therefore 

DISMISSES the case without leave to amend. See Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 

F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[W]here the Plaintiff has previously been granted leave to amend 

and has subsequently failed to add the requisite particularity to its claims, [t]he district court’s 

discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.” (quotation omitted)); cf. Edwards v. 

Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] plaintiff may obtain an appealable 

final judgment by fil[ing] in writing a notice of intent not to file an amended complaint.”
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(quotation omitted)). 

The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

10/13/2017
EX PARTE Donald R. HORTON and David Auld

1160816

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Laroyce ODOM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1330

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 8, 2019.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for mistrial based on a prosecutor's passing reference to "jail calls" in closing argument.1 A sixteen-minute jail call from the defendant to a victim was admitted into evidence during the case and without objection, but was not identified at that time as a "jail" call. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on this reference during the State's closing argument, and the motion was denied by the trial court.

We find no abuse of discretion or harmful error in the trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial based on this single word amidst ten pages of closing argument. The issue does not warrant extended discussion, as it is clear the reference was not "so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial." *See**Guzman v. State*, 214 So. 3d 625, 633 (Fla. 2017) ("Even if the jurors might have inferred that [the defendant] was jailed for a different crime, the reference to the jail was brief, isolated, inadvertent, and not so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial."); *Fletcher v. State*, 168 So. 3d 186, 207 (Fla. 2015) ("A comment [regarding a defendant's prior imprisonment] that is brief, isolated, and inadvertent may not warrant a mistrial.").

The final judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

1

The closing argument passage by the prosecutor was, "The state brought to you photographs state brought to you casings, the state brought to you 7 different witness testimonies, state brought to you 911 call and the state brought to you jail calls but what are you to do with all this?" [sic].
Kunta Kinte HOLLEY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2407

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 14, 2019

Debra J. Sutton of Sutton Law Firm, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

CASE, Associate Senior Judge.

Kunta Kinte Holley appeals from a final administrative support order entered by the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program. He argues, and the Department concedes, that the Department erred in computing his retroactive child support obligation. *See* § 61.30(17), Fla. Stat. (2017) (limiting the time period for recovery of retroactive child support to twenty-four months prior to filing the petition). The Department also acknowledges that it incorrectly used evidence related to Holley's current income to calculate his retroactive support obligation despite having information regarding his monthly income during the retroactive time period. *See**Salters v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Mobley*, 32 So.3d 777, 778-79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (stating that the Department must calculate the retroactive support due using income information in its possession from the retroactive time period). Therefore, we affirm Holley's current support obligation but reverse his retroactive support obligation and remand for recalculation. In all other respects, we affirm.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SALARIO and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**SOUTHERNHERITAGE BANCSHARES, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Southern Heritage Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven W. Ledbetter,Chief Financial 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 Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Steven W. Ledbetter |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Steven W. Ledbetter     |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| August 8, 2005     |

 

1

----