alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020143EN.01002701.xml

| 30.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/27

---

Corrigendum to statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Fisheries Control Agency for the financial year 2018 – amending budget No 1

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 416 of 15 November 2018
  )

On page 45, Chapters 3 5 and 3 6, Title 3 – Total and Grand Total:

for:

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Appropriations 2018 | Amending budget No 1 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Commitments | Payments | Commitments | Payments | Commitments | Payments |
| ‘[...] | [...] | | | | | | |
| 3 5 | HARMONISATION AND STANDARDISATION | 4 859 000 | | | | 4 859 000 | |
| 3 6 | IMPROVED REGIONAL FISHERIES GOVERNANCE IN WESTERN AFRICA (PESCAO) | | | 403 849 | | 403 849 | p.m. |
| | Title 3 — Total | 6 959 000 | 2 100 000 | 403 849 | | 7 362 849 | 2 100 000 |
| | | | | | | | |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 16 813 000 | 11 954 000 | 595 849 | 192 000 | 17 408 849 | 12 146 000 ’ |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Appropriations 2018

Amending budget No 1

New amount

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

Payments

‘[...]

[...]

3 5

HARMONISATION AND STANDARDISATION

4 859 000

4 859 000

3 6

IMPROVED REGIONAL FISHERIES GOVERNANCE IN WESTERN AFRICA (PESCAO)

403 849

403 849

p.m.

Title 3 — Total

6 959 000

2 100 000

403 849

7 362 849

2 100 000

GRAND TOTAL

16 813 000

11 954 000

595 849

192 000

17 408 849

12 146 000 ’

read:

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Appropriations 2018 | Amending budget No 1 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Commitments | Payments | Commitments | Payments | Commitments | Payments |
| ‘[...] | [...] | | | | | | |
| 3 5 | HARMONISATION AND STANDARDISATION | 4 859 000 | 4 859 000 | | | 4 859 000 | 4 859 000 |
| 3 6 | IMPROVED REGIONAL FISHERIES GOVERNANCE IN WESTERN AFRICA (PESCAO) | | | 403 849 | 403 849 | 403 849 | 403 849 |
| | Title 3 — Total | 6 959 000 | 6 959 000 | 403 849 | 403 849 | 7 362 849 | 7 362 849 |
| | | | | | | | |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 16 813 000 | 16 813 000 | 595 849 | 595 849 | 17 408 849 | 17 408 849 ’ |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Appropriations 2018

Amending budget No 1

New amount

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

Payments

‘[...]

[...]

3 5

HARMONISATION AND STANDARDISATION

4 859 000

4 859 000

4 859 000

4 859 000

3 6

IMPROVED REGIONAL FISHERIES GOVERNANCE IN WESTERN AFRICA (PESCAO)

403 849

403 849

403 849

403 849

Title 3 — Total

6 959 000

6 959 000

403 849

403 849

7 362 849

7 362 849

GRAND TOTAL

16 813 000

16 813 000

595 849

595 849

17 408 849

17 408 849 ’

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel D. BENCOSME, also known as Samuel De Jesus Bencosme De La Cruz, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-40154.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 4, 2004.

Kerry M. Klintworth, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Richard J. Clarkson, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.*

Samuel D. Bencosme entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute the same. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress all physical, documentary, and other evidence that was seized after he consented to have his car searched following a traffic stop. Bencosme fails to show that the district court’s finding that Bencosme voluntarily consented to the search of his automobile was clearly erroneous. *See United, States v. Mendozar-Gonzalez,*318 F.3d 663, 666 (5th Cir.2003); *United States v. Zueco,*71 F.3d 188,191 (5th Cir.1995).

The district court’s denial of Bencosme’s motion to suppress evidence is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of PDC 2004-B Limited Partnership (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned certify 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 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
      Registrant.





/s/
      Richard W. McCullough
            
            December
      18, 2009Richard
      W. McCulloughChief
      Executive OfficerPetroleum
      Development CorporationManaging
      General Partner/s/
      Gysle R. Shellum
            
            December
      18, 2009Gysle
      R. ShellumChief
      Financial OfficerPetroleum
      Development CorporationManaging
      General Partner





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided by the Registrant and will be retained by the
Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
ex10-3.htm


    


    Exhibit
10(iii)

    


    Oiltek,
Inc.

    7808
Creekridge Circle, Suite 105

    Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55439

    


    


    January 30, 2009

    


    Mr.
Michael L. Ray

    108
Parkway Plaza

    Madill,
OK  73446

     


                   
Re:           Convertible
Note

    


    Dear Mr.
Ray:

    


    Reference
is made to the convertible promissory note (the “Note”) issued by Oiltek, Inc.
(the “Payor”) in favor of you, Michael L. Ray (the “Payee”) in the principal
amount of $5,000, dated November 28, 2006, and the subscription agreement (the
“Subscription Agreement”) between the Payor and you, the Payee, dated November
28, 2006.

    


    The conversion price with respect to
the Note and the Subscription Agreement is listed by mistake as $0.02 per
share.  The Payor hereby agrees that the conversion price with respect
to the Note and the Subscription Agreement shall be $0.01 per
share.

    


    Very truly yours,

    


    Oiltek, Inc.

    


    


    By: Kent
Rodriguez______________

           Kent Rodriguez,
CEO
LAFOURCHE PARISH WATER DISTRICT NO. 1 v. DIGCO UTILITY CONSTRUCTION, L.P., and Auger Services, Inc.

NO. 2019-C-0577

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 17, 2019

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
f8k011908ex10vii_mmg.htm


     

     

    
      Exhibit
10.7


      


      


      CONVERSION
AGREEMENT

      


      This
Conversion Agreement
(the “Agreement”), dated as
of January 19, 2009, is made and entered into by and between Mega Media Group,
Inc. (the “Company”), and Rachel
Paukman. (the “Holder”).

      


      RECITALS

      


      WHEREAS, the Holder holds a 9%
promissory note with an outstanding principal amount of $76,999.00 and interest
amount of $9,633.47 (the “Note”), dated June
23, 2006, September 25, 2006, and March 18, 2008 for a total of $86,623.47 which
has been assumed by the Company; and

      


      WHEREAS, the Holder has agreed
to convert the Note, including accrued interest thereon, into shares of the
Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Common Stock”), on
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.

      


      NOW, THEREFORE, intending to
be legally bound, the parties hereby agree as follows:

      


      
        	
                1.  

              	
                Conversion. The Holder
      shall convert the outstanding principal due under the Note, together with
      any interest accrued thereon through the date of conversion, into shares
      of the Company's Common Stock, at the rate of $0.01 per share (the “Conversion”)
      for a total of 8,663,247 shares. The Conversion shall be considered
      payment in full by the Company of the Note and the conversion method in
      the Note shall be waived. The Holder shall deliver the Note to the Company
      for cancellation.

              


      

      


      
        	
                2.  

              	
                Binding Effect. This
      instrument is being executed by the Holder and shall be binding upon its
      successors and assigns for the uses and purposes above set forth and
      referred to, and shall be effective as of the date
  hereof.

              


      

      


      
        	
                3.  

              	
                Governing Law. This
      instrument shall be governed by and enforced in accordance with the laws
      of the State of New York without any application of the principles of
      conflicts of laws.

              


      

      


      


      


      


      
        
          
          

        

        
          -1-

          
            

          

        

        
          
          

        

      

      


       

      


      


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Agreement has been duly executed by the Company and Holder as of the date first
above written.

      


       

      MEGA
MEDIA GROUP, INC.

      
 

      /s/
Alex
Shvarts                                     

                                                                                                                                    
 Alex Shvarts, CEO

      


       

      THE
HOLDER

       

      /s/  Rachel
Paukman                             


      Rachel
Paukman

       

       

       

       

       

       

      -2-
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RELATED CASE ORDER 

A Motion for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related or a 

Sua Sponte Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship (Civil L.R. 3-12) has been 

filed. The time for filing an opposition or statement of support has passed. As the judge assigned 

to case 

17-cv-00554-YGR 

City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation v. RH, Inc. 

I find that the more recently filed case(s) that I have initialed below are related to the case 

assigned to me, and such case(s) shall be reassigned to me. Any cases listed below that are not 

related to the case assigned to me are referred to the judge assigned to the next-earliest filed case 

for a related case determination. 

Case Title Related Not Related

18-cv-02452-CRB Magnani v. Friedman YGR

ORDER 

The parties are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the 

initials of the newly assigned judge immediately after the case number. Any case management 

conference in any reassigned case will be rescheduled by the Court. The parties shall adjust the 

dates for the conference, disclosures and report required by FRCivP 16 and 26 accordingly. 

Unless otherwise ordered, any dates for hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be renoticed by the moving party before the newly assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR Local 

Rules remain in effect; and any deadlines established in a case management order continue to 

govern, except dates for appearance in court, which will be rescheduled by the newly assigned 

judge. 

Dated: June 19, 2018 By: 

 Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers 

 United States District Judge 

 
2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CLERK’S NOTICE 

The court has reviewed the motion and determined that no cases are related and no 

reassignments shall occur. 

Dated: By: 

Frances Stone, Deputy Clerk
VERDICT FORM – No. 17-cv-00600-LB

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

RENEE MARIE LEPAGE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF NAPA, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-00600-LB 

VERDICT FORM 

Claim of Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fourth Amendment; California Battery) 

1. Did defendant Timothy Reid use excessive force against plaintiff Renee LePage in 

violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and California law (battery)? 

Yes: _______________ No: _______________ 

Proceed to question 2. 

Claim of Violation of Civil Rights (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, known as the Bane Act) 

2. Did defendant Reid interfere with or attempt to interfere with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of 

her right to be free from unreasonable seizure in violation of the Bane Act? 

Yes: _______________ No: _______________ 

Proceed to question 3. 

Case 3:17-cv-00600-LB Document 137 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 2
VERDICT FORM – No. 17-cv-00600-LB 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 Californi

a

Claim of Negligence 

3. Was defendant Reid negligent? 

Yes: _______________ No: _______________ 

Proceed to question 4. 

Damages 

4. Did you answer yes to at least one of the following questions: 1, 2, or 3? 

Yes: _______________ No: _______________ 

If your answer is No, you have reached a verdict, and you must stop here, and have the 

presiding juror sign and date this form. If your answer is Yes, then proceed to Question 5. 

5. If you answered Yes to question 1, 2, or 3, what amount of damages do you award to the 

plaintiff? 

$ _______________ 

Proceed to question 6. 

6. If you answered Yes to question 1 or 2, was defendant Reid’s conduct malicious, 

oppressive, or committed in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights? 

Yes: _______________ No: _______________ 

If your answer is No, you have reached a verdict, and you must stop here, and have the 

presiding juror sign and date this form. If your answer is Yes, then proceed to Question 7. 

7. If you answered Yes to question 6, what amount of punitive damages do you award to the 

plaintiff? 

$ _______________ 

Signed:___________________________________ (Presiding Juror) 

Dated:____________________________________ 

Case 3:17-cv-00600-LB Document 137 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2****Section 906 Certification of Principal Financial Officer**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Novelis Inc. (the Company),hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31,2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.              /s/ Steven Fisher   Steven Fisher   Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.2: Rule 13a-14(a) Certification

I, Du Song, certify that:

        1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Iron
Star Development, Inc.;

        2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this  report;

        3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this  report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this  report;

        4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
small business issuer and have:

        a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

        b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and

        c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during
the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business
issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

        5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

        a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which
are reasonably likely to  adversely affect the small business issuer's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and

        b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: August  21, 2006			/s/ Du Song
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Du Song, Chief Financial Officer
# L_2018026EN.01005201.xml

| 31.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 26/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/52

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2018/152

of 29 January 2018

appointing an alternate member, proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany, of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the German Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

| (2) | An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Anke SPOORENDONK, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Anke SPOORENDONK,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:

| — | Ms Sabine SÜTTERLIN-WAACK, Ministerin für Justiz, Europa, Verbraucherschutz und Gleichstellung des Landes Schleswig-Holstein. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Sabine SÜTTERLIN-WAACK, Ministerin für Justiz, Europa, Verbraucherschutz und Gleichstellung des Landes Schleswig-Holstein.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 29 January 2018.

For the Council

The President

R. PORODZANOV

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

2

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).

3

---
Guerline JEAN-JAQUES a/k/a Guerline Jean-Jacques, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3552

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Charles Robert LYNN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4406

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Larry SCOTT, a/k/a John Doe, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Doctor GOWAN; Carl Mitchell, Doctor, Physician, Defendants—Appellees, v. South Carolina Department Of Corrections; Gary Maynard, Director, Defendants.

No. 04-6142.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 13, 2004.

Decided: May 19, 2004.

Larry Scott, Appellant pro se.

Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., McKay, McKay & Settana, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Larry Scott appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Scott v. Gowan,*No. CA-02-4206-322BC (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2003). We 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*
Gerson JUAREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1639

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 16, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.