alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2018099EN.01001101.xml

| 19.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 99/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 99/11

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2018/591

of 16 April 2018

appointing a 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. On 4 March 2016, by Council Decision (EU) 2016/333 (4), Ms Dagmar MÜHLENFIELD was replaced by Mr Joachim WOLBERGS as a member. |
| --- | --- |

(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. On 4 March 2016, by Council Decision (EU) 2016/333 (4), Ms Dagmar MÜHLENFIELD was replaced by Mr Joachim WOLBERGS as a member.

| (2) | A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Joachim WOLBERGS, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Joachim WOLBERGS,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

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

| — | Dr Peter KURZ, Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Mannheim. |
| --- | --- |

—

Dr Peter KURZ, Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Mannheim.

Article 2

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

Done at Luxembourg, 16 April 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

(4)  Council Decision (EU) 2016/333 of 4 March 2016 appointing a member, proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany, of the Committee of the Regions (OJ L 62, 9.3.2016, p. 16).

4

---
#### Matthew HARKER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 03-4079.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 23, 2004.

Decided May 18, 2004.

*440Matthew Harker, Kansas City, MO, pro se.

Before BYE, MCMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Harker appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the Western District of Missouri denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and concluding that his complaint allegations were legally frivolous. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying IFP status, or err in concluding that Harker’s fanciful complaint allegations were frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. 47A(a).

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Giezi CORRALES VOLPI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3488

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 7, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Kathryn R. Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm this *Anders*1 appeal in all respects. However, we remand for a correction of a scrivener's error on the judgment and sentence. Appellant was convicted *1150of the lesser included offense of robbery with a mask, pursuant to section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2017), but the judgment and sentence erroneously cites to section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes, corresponding to the offense of robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERROR.

ORFINGER, LAMBERT, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

1

*Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-01-00617-CR Kim Kaylean Wi

ll iams, A ppellant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DIS TRICT

NO. 47,893, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING Appe llant Kim Ka

y l ea n W i l l i am s w as pl ac ed on de f er re d adj udi ca

ti on com m un i ty su pe rvi si on after pl eadi

ng gui lty to tamperi

ng wi th a governm

ental record. SeeTe x. Pen. Co de Ann. § 37.10 (West Supp . 2002) . The di strict court subse quently revoked supervi si on, adjudi cated ap pe llant gu ilt y, a nd se nt en ce d h er t o inc ar ce r at io n fo rt we nt y-o ne mo nt hs in a s t at e ja il.

Appellant’s co ur t - ap po int ed at t o rne y filed a b r ief c o nc lud ing t ha t t he ap pe al is fri volous and wi

thout m eri t. The b rief meets th e r eq ui re men ts o f Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967 ), by pre sent ing a pr ofe ssio nal evalua t ion o f the re co rd demo nst ra t ing why t her e ar e no ar gu ab le grounds t o be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio , 48 8 U. S. 75 ( 198 8); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 78) ; Curr ie v. State , 516 S.W.2d

684 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 74) ; Jackson v. State , 485 S. W.2d 553 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 72) ; Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) . A copy

of counsel ’s b

rief was del iv ered t o a ppe llant, and a ppe llant wa s ad vised o f her r ight to exam in e the appel

la te recor d and to file

a pro se brie f. No pro se bri ef h as been fi le d.2 We have r eviewe d t he record and counsel ’s b rief and agree that the appeal

is fri volous and wit ho ut mer it . We find no t hing in the re cord tha

t mi ght a rguabl y supp ort the ap peal. Co unsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Davi d Puryear, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, Patterson and Puryear Af fi rmed File d: March 14, 2002 Do No t Publis

h
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Certification
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 by the Chief Executive Officer,


as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of VirtualScopics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Robert
      Klimasewski ,
      as
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002 to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







/s/
      Robert G. Klimasewski


Robert
      G.
      Klimasewski


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


August
      10, 2006





This
      Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 28437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-0000]





                Sunshine Act Meetings



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / 
Sunshine Act Meetings
[[Page 28437]] 




Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Time and Date: 11:00 a.m., Monday, June 5, 1995.

Place: William McChesney Martin, Jr. Federal Reserve Board Building, C 
Street entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:

    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal 
Reserve System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced 
meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to 
the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting.

    Dated: May 26, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95-0000 Filed 5-30-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel DELEON ESCOBAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-20604.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 25, 2004.

James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, John B. Kinehen, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lourdes Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Miguel Angel Deleon Escobar was sentenced to concurrent terms of sixty months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release following entry of his guilty plea to one count of money laundering and one count of conspiracy to commit *money*laundering. Escobar appeals his sentence. He asserts that the district court erroneously increased his base offense level by applying the specific offense characteristics of U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1. He contends that his underlying offense was aiding and abetting a drug transaction and that only the specific offense characteristics of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 applied to his case.

Review of Escobar’s argument is for plain error only. *See United States v. Rios-Ouintero,*204 F.3d 214, 215 (5th Cir. 2000). Escobar must show “(1) an error; (2) that is clear or plain; (3) that affects [his] substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” *United States v. Vasquez,*216 F.3d 456, 459 (5th Cir.2000).

Escobar does not dispute that the Chapter Two Sentencing Guideline section applicable to his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 is U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 and that U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 also applied to his case because the underlying offense was aiding and abetting a drug transaction. *See*Appendix A; U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.1, lB1.2(a). Once the applicable guideline section from Chapter Two has been determined, the court is directed “to determine any applicable specific offense characteristics (under that guideline).” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2, comment, (n.2.).

*964Amendment 634 explains that U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 was amended to ensure that money launderers receive an offense level that is “one to four levels greater than the Chapter Two offense level for the underlying offense.” Amendment 634, Appendix C, Vol. II. The “one to four” additional levels are derived from the U.S.S.G. § 2Sl.l(b) specific offense characteristics. *See, e.g., United States v. Frank,*354 F.3d 910, 927-28 (8th Cir.2004) (applying specific offense characteristic for money-laundering guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2Sl.l(b)(2)(B), in addition to specific offense characteristic for underlying offense of fraud).

Escobar has not shown that the district court’s determination of his offense level was error, plain or otherwise. Accordingly, the judgment' of the district court 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.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

November 14, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00106-CV

IN RE DEAN E. SMITH, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

257th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-33707

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 7, 2019, relator Dean E. Smith filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Sandra Peake, 

presiding judge of the 257th District Court of Harris County, to vacate a June 1, 2018 

enforcement order. 
2

The order was signed by the Honorable Judy Warne, who is no longer a sitting 

judge. On February 21, 2019, we abated this original proceeding to allow Judge 

Peake an opportunity reconsider the enforcement order and to advise this court of 

the action taken on relator’s request. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b) (stating that, in an 

original proceeding “the court must abate the proceeding to allow the successor to 

reconsider the original party’s decision”). 

On October 29, 2019, Judge Peake advised this court that she withdrew the 

June 1, 2019 order and granted a new trial. On November 7, 2019, relator filed a 

motion dismiss in light of Judge Peake’s withdrawal of the June 1, 2019 order and 

grant of a new trial. Relator’s request for mandamus relief is now moot. Relator’s 

motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

Accordingly, we order relator’s petition for writ of mandamus dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot.
EXHIBIT 10.26


 


Cellu
Tissue Holdings Inc.


Corporate
Bonus Plan


Fiscal
2008


 


Background Principal: To
eliminate the previous history of cliff bonus programs and institute a plan
that pays out a “sliding scale” once Adjusted EBITDA surpasses prior year results.  Maximum Payout (as defined by employee)is
achieved at budget EBITDA of $49MM.


 


	
  Fiscal 2008 Adj.

  	
   

  	
  % of Target

  	
   

  
	
  EBITDA $(MM)

  	
   

  	
  Payout

  	
   

  
	
  44.0

  	
   

  	
  50

  	
  %

  
	
  44.5

  	
   

  	
  55

  	
  %

  
	
  45.0

  	
   

  	
  60

  	
  %

  
	
  45.5

  	
   

  	
  65

  	
  %

  
	
  46.0

  	
   

  	
  70

  	
  %

  
	
  46.5

  	
   

  	
  75

  	
  %

  
	
  47.0

  	
   

  	
  80

  	
  %

  
	
  47.5

  	
   

  	
  85

  	
  %

  
	
  48.0

  	
   

  	
  90

  	
  %

  
	
  48.5

  	
   

  	
  95

  	
  %

  
	
  49.0

  	
   

  	
  100

  	
  %

  
	
  51.0 or greater

  	
   

  	
  120

  	
  %

  



 


Add’l
Background Information:


 


	
  Prior Year Base Line

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Base Cellu

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.00

  	
   

  
	
  City (11 months)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13.66

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  43.66

  	
   

  



 


Adjusted EBITDA as
defined by the Cellu Tissue Monthly Reporting Package


 


Maxium payout for Fiscal
2008 is 100%.
Nader G. ABDELMASIH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3906

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 
**- 6583** 

DARRELL J. DEBREW ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

BRANDON BROOKS; P. COLLINS; LT. DODSON; C. EICHENLAUB; MRS. FAUCETT; GLENN O. FORD; CANDICE GREGORY; TRACY JOHNS; CAMILLE JOHNSON; HARLEY LAPPIN; LT. RODENBAUGH; HARRELL WATTS; K. M. WHITE; JOHN DOE, Mail Room Employee; HANK PAULSON; JOHN DOE, Treasury Department Employee ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis trict of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever, III , Chief District Judge. ( 5:10

- ct

- 03198

- D )

Submitted : August 16, 2012 Decided: August 20, 2012

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Darrell James DeBrew, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Darrell James DeBrew appeals the district court ’ s

order s denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403

U.S. 388 (1971) , and denying his subsequent motion for

reconsideration . We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially ∗ for the

reason s stated by the district court. DeBrew v. Brooks , No.

5:10

- ct

- 03198

- D (E.D.N.C. July 22, 2011 & Jan. 24, 2012). 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

∗ Although we decline to find that DeBrew’s challenges to his disciplinary convictions are barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486

- 87 (1994), we have reviewed the merits of DeBrew’s claims and agree that he fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
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 Terra Firma Technologies,  Inc. f/k/a
Highriver Acquisition Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Brian  Kawamura,  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  operation of the
Company.


Date: July 30, 2007                               By: /s/ Brian Kawamura
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Brian Kawamura
                                                     President and Director


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Terra Firma Technologies, Inc. f/k/a Highriver Acquisition Corp. and
will be retained by Terra Firma Technologies,  Inc. f/k/a Highriver  Acquisition
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
Jermaine D. JENNINGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-898

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, John M. Piecuch, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MMI Products, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
5. 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
6. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and
7. disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
8. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
9. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
10. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.



|Date:   March 31, 2006 | By:   /s/John M. Piecuch                              
|---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|                       | John M. Piecuch, President and Chief Executive Officer