alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2017289EN.01000701.xml

| 8.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 289/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 289/7

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2017/1998

of 6 November 2017

appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, 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 Spanish 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 Ms Catalina Ana VICENS GUILLÉN, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Catalina Ana VICENS GUILLÉN,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Ms María NIKOLOPOULOU, Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO), 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, 6 November 2017.

For the Council

The President

T. TAMM

---

(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

---
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 Quarterly Report of BankFinancial Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, F. Morgan Gasior, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and
President of the Company, certify, 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; and

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



|                                                             |  |  |  |                        
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|/s/    F. MORGAN GASIOR                                      |  |  |  | Dated: October 27, 2009
|F. Morgan Gasior                                             |  |  |  |                        
|Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |  | 

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



45
---

Exhibit 32.a CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Report) of Dynamic Gold Corp. (the Company) for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, each of Tim Coupland, the Chief Executive Officer, and Gord Steblin, the Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and belief: (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. / s / Tim Coupland
Tim Coupland, Principal Executive Officer
February 9, 2011/ s / Gord Steblin
Gord Steblin, Principal Financial Officer
February 9, 2011


---
(11 -‘ 40AL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0600

DEBORAH L. HERRINGTON,

Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL STEVEN ROGERS,

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER

RLED

APR 0 7 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

State of Montana

Michael Rogers appeals the Thirteenth Judicial District Court's order affirming the

Yellowstone County Justice Court's April 1, 2019 order of protection against him in favor of

Deborah Harrington, a cashier at the Walmart in Billings Heights. The order of protection

expired April 1, 2020.

A matter is moot when a court's judgment will not effectively operate to grant relief.

Clark v. Roosevelt Cnty., 2007 MT 44, 1111, 336 Mont. 118, 154 P.3d 48. "The fundamental

question to be answered in any review of possible mootness is 'whether it is possible to grant

some form of effective relief to the appellant.' " Briese v. Mont. Pub. Employees' Ret. Bd.,

2012 MT 192, ¶ 14, 366 Mont. 148, 285 P.3d 550 (quoting Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v.

Stuivenga, 2012 MT 75, ¶ 37, 364 Mont. 390, 276 P.3d 867). Because the order of

protection has expired by its own terrns, it does not appear that the Court's consideration of

the issues Rogers raises on appeal could lead to any form of effective relief.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties.

DATED this 4- day of April, 2020.

Chief Justice

04/07/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0600
,)
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2651

_____________________________ A LLIED R ECYCLING , I NC

. and B RIDGEFIELD E MPLOYERS I NS

. C O ./ C LAIMS C ENTER , Appellant s ,

v.

J ACKSON A. R OBERTSON , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims

. Frank Clark , Judge

.
Date of Accident: March 21, 2013.

May 2 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W ETHERELL , R AY , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Michael E. McCabe and David H. Roos of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., Fort Myers
, for Appellant s

. Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale
, for Appellee.
exv4w1







EXHIBIT 4.1




AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED RIGHTS AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED RIGHTS AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is dated as
of January 15, 2009, and is made among BIOGEN IDEC INC., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a Idec
Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the “Company”), and MELLON INVESTOR SERVICES, LLC, a New Jersey
limited liability company, as Rights Agent (f/k/a ChaseMellon Shareholder Services, LLC, the
“Rights Agent”), with reference to the following facts:



     A. The Company and the Rights Agent entered into that certain Amended and Restated Rights
Agreement (the “Rights Agreement”), dated as of July 26, 2001, and further amended June 20, 2003.
Capitalized terms used without definition herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the
Rights Agreement.



     B. Pursuant to Section 27 of the Rights Agreement, the Company may from time to time
supplement or amend the Rights Agreement at any time prior to a Distribution Date (which has not
yet occurred);



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Rights Agent hereby agree as follows:



     1. Final Expiration Date.
Section 7(a) of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended to replace the date July 26, 2011 with January 30, 2009,
so that the defined term “Final Expiration Date” shall mean January 30, 2009.




     2. Conforming Changes. The Exhibits to the Rights Agreement shall be restated to reflect
this Amendment, including all conforming changes.



     3. Effectiveness. This Amendment shall be deemed effective as of the date first set forth
above, as if executed and delivered on such date. Except as amended hereby, the Rights Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect and otherwise be unaffected hereby.



     4. Governing Law. The Amendment shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the
State of Delaware and for all purposes shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
laws of such state applicable to contracts to be made and to be performed entirely within such
state.



     5. Counterparts. The Agreement may executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, and all of which together shall constitute one instrument.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed as of the date first set forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	THE COMPANY:	 	THE RIGHTS AGENT:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	BIOGEN IDEC INC.,	 	MELLON INVESTOR SERVICES, LLC,	 	 
	a Delaware corporation	 	a New Jersey limited liability corporation	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	 	 	Name:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	 	 	Title:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES LOPEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00159-VC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state inmate, has filed a pro se civil action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against Washoe County, Nevada Sheriff’s Sergeant James Lopey, Special FBI 

Agent Gerald Dietrich, Private Investigator Randy Ontiveros and Ontiveros’s employee Francie 

Koehler. Bonilla has been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g) unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his 

complaint. 28 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, No. C 11-3180 CW (PR); Bonilla v. 

Dawson, No. C 13-0951 CW (PR). 

The allegations in this complaint do not show that Bonilla was in imminent danger at the 

time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed in forma pauperis. Moreover, even if the IFP 

application were granted, his lawsuit would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 

486-87 (1994). Accordingly, the case is dismissed with prejudice.

The Clerk shall enter a separate judgment and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2017

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00159-VC Document 3 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 1
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


Certification of Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of Apolo Gold & Energy Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert Dinning, Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.

September 28, 2006               /s/ Robert Dinning
------------------               -----------------------------------
                                 Robert Dinning
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:06-cv-00034-J Document 13 Filed 05/14/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 54
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

United States ofAmerica,

Plaintiff,

V.

RuXS£-Lt MCCL^MD^

Defendant.

For the reason stated by the parties on the record onJ ULff (g Trial Act from A\li>/ lo 2018, to . 2(!Sl8 and finds that the ends ofjustice served by the

continuance outweigh the best interestof the public and the defendant in a speedytrial. See 18U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(A). TheCourt makes thisfinding andbases this continuance on the following factors;

Failureto grant a continuance wouldbe likelyto result in a miscarriage of justice.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(I).

The case is so unusual or so complex, due to [circle applicable reasons] the number of

defendants, the nature ofthe prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact

or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or the trial

itselfwithin the time limits established by this section. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

Failureto grant a continuance would denythe defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel,

takinginto account the exercise of due diligence. See 18U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

Failureto grant a continuance would unreasonably denythe defendantcontinuity of counsel,

given counsel's otherscheduled case commitments, takinginto account the exercise of due

diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

Failure to granta continuance wouldunreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time

necessary for effective preparation, taking intoaccountthe exercise of due diligence.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

For the reasons stated on the record, it is further ordered that time is excluded under 18 U.S.C. §

3161(b) and waived with the consent ofthe defendant under Federal Rules ofCriminal Procedure

5.1(c) and (d).

For the reasons stated on the record, it is further ordered that time is excluded under 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(l)(E)(F) for delay resulting from removal/transport of the defendant to another district.

Case No Cyf^ n - 00 0

STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING

TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

^0'

2018, the Court excludes time under the Speedy

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: . 2018

STIPULATED;

eienoan

lOONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Assistant United States Attorney
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 405 

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 

Shawn Musgrave v. Mark Warner and the U.S. Senate Select Committee 

on Intelligence. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 1, 2021 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel 

in the case of Shawn Musgrave v. Mark Warner and 

the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 

Whereas, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 

and Senator Mark Warner, Chairman of the Committee, 

have been named as defendants in the case of Shawn 

Musgrave v. Mark Warner and the U.S. Senate Select 

Committee on Intelligence, Civil Action No. 1:21–cv– 

02198, pending in the United State District Court for 

the District of Columbia; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend Committees and Members of the Senate in civil acVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:33 Oct 01, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR405.ATS SR405

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 405 ATS 

tions relating to their official responsibilities: Now therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is author2 ized to represent the Select Committee on Intelligence and 

3 Senator Warner in the case of Shawn Musgrave v. Mark 

4 Warner and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intel5 ligence. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00050-CR

MORRIS CLAY MACKEY APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Morris Clay Mackey entered open pleas of guilty to two counts of 

aggravated sexual assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 

2011). A jury found him guilty of each count pursuant to an instructed verdict 

and, after a trial on punishment, assessed his punishment at twenty-seven years’

imprisonment for each count. The trial court sentenced him accordingly, ordering 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

that the sentences run consecutive to Mackey’s previously-entered sentence of 

twenty years’ imprisonment for a different offense.

Mackey’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw 

as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet 

the requirements of Anders v. California2by presenting a professional evaluation 

of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. This 

court afforded Mackey the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he 

has done so.

As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the 

record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is 

frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); 

Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only 

then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Mackey’s prose brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without 

merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an appeal. See 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, 

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

 

2

386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
3

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 5, 2012
#### E. Lowell MASON, Debtor—Appellant, v. Susan L. SOWELL, Trustee—Appellee.

No. 03-1909.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 29, 2004.

Decided: April 30, 2004.

E. Lowell Mason, Appellant pro se.

Susan Leigh Sowell, Kahen, Muehin, Zavis & Rosenman, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

E. Lowell Mason appeals from the district court’s order dismissing as interlocutory his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders: (1) finding him in civil contempt and stating how he may purge that contempt; (2) denying his motion to disqualify the bankruptcy court judge and setting a hearing on other pending motions; and (3) denying his motion to dismiss an adversary proceeding against him. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Mason v. Sowell,*Nos. CA-03-234-3, BK-02-33458, AP-03-3026 (W.D.N.C. filed July 18, 2003, entered July 23, 2003; filed Aug. 4, 2003, entered Aug. 6, 2003). We deny Mason’s motion for clarification of the lower courts’ jurisdiction and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 23.1



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-74413,  No. 333-83937,  No. 333-39918, No. 333-45362, No. 333-48752, and No.
333-62860  on Form S-3 and in  Registration  Statements  No.  333-83935  and No.
333-41186  on Form S-8 of  MediaBay,  Inc.  of our  report  dated  April 1, 2002
appearing  in this Annual  Report on Form 10-K of  MediaBay,  Inc.  for the year
ended December 31, 2001.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche
-----------------------
Parsippany, New Jersey
April 1, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                   60,673
<SECURITIES>                            463,833
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,361,559
<ALLOWANCES>                              8,823
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      2,369,625
<PP&E>                                  725,908
<DEPRECIATION>                          484,434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        7,039,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 1,850,719
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 44,960
<OTHER-SE>                            5,027,204
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          7,039,374
<SALES>                               6,762,891
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      6,762,891
<CGS>                                 6,032,886
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         9,706,419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        1,712
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (2,897,096)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (2,897,096)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                        (2,897,096)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (.73)


</TABLE>