alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Úřední věstník C 358/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0863 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 358 |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Ročník 614. října 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0863

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 358

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Ročník 614. října 2018

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informace |
| | INFORMACE ORGÁNŮ, INSTITUCÍ A JINÝCH SUBJEKTŮ EVROPSKÉ UNIE |
| | Evropský parlamentRada |
| 2018/C 358/01 | Společné prohlášení Evropského parlamentu, Rady a Komise k nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU) 2018/1475, kterým se stanoví právní rámec Evropského sboru solidarity a kterým se mění nařízení (EU) č. 1288/2013, nařízení (EU) č. 1293/2013 a rozhodnutí č. 1313/2013/EU | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

IV   Informace

INFORMACE ORGÁNŮ, INSTITUCÍ A JINÝCH SUBJEKTŮ EVROPSKÉ UNIE

Evropský parlamentRada

2018/C 358/01

Společné prohlášení Evropského parlamentu, Rady a Komise k nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU) 2018/1475, kterým se stanoví právní rámec Evropského sboru solidarity a kterým se mění nařízení (EU) č. 1288/2013, nařízení (EU) č. 1293/2013 a rozhodnutí č. 1313/2013/EU

1

---

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

IV Informace

INFORMACE ORGÁNŮ, INSTITUCÍ A JINÝCH SUBJEKTŮ EVROPSKÉ UNIE

Evropský parlament Rada

| 4.10.2018 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | C 358/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2018

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

C 358/1

---

Společné prohlášení Evropského parlamentu, Rady a Komise k nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU) 2018/1475, kterým se stanoví právní rámec Evropského sboru solidarity a kterým se mění nařízení (EU) č. 1288/2013, nařízení (EU) č. 1293/2013 a rozhodnutí č. 1313/2013/EU (1)

(2018/C 358/01)

Aniž jsou dotčeny pravomoci rozpočtového orgánu, 80 % rozpočtu na provádění programu v letech 2019 a 2020 by se mělo zpřístupnit v rámci konkrétních přerozdělení v podokruhu 1a (Konkurenceschopnost pro růst a zaměstnanost) víceletého finančního rámce (VFR) na období 2014–2020 a přerozdělení z Mechanismu civilní ochrany Unie a programu LIFE. Nemělo by však docházet k dalšímu přerozdělování z programu Erasmus+, kromě částky 231 800 000 EUR uvedené návrhu Komise (COM(2017)0262).

Zbývajících 20 % rozpočtu na provádění programu v letech 2019 a 2020 by se mělo získat z dostupných zdrojů v rámci podokruhu 1a VFR na období 2014–2020.

Panuje obecná shoda o tom, že Komise zajistí, aby byly nezbytné částky k dispozici prostřednictvím běžného ročního rozpočtového procesu, a to vyváženým a obezřetným způsobem.

Prohlášení Komise

Komise potvrzuje, že využití prostředků na zdroje technické pomoci z iniciativy Komise v rámci nařízení o společných ustanoveních (zvláště přerozdělování z Evropského sociálního fondu a z Evropského zemědělského fondu pro rozvoj venkova) na financování Evropského sboru solidarity v roce 2018 Komise nepoužije jako precedent pro návrh týkající se Evropského sboru solidarity po roce 2020 (COM(2018)0440)).

---

(1)  Úř. věst. L 250, 4.10.2018, s. 1.

---
Darren Eugene HANKERSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9902.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7472

STEPHEN ROY GRATTON, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus
CHARLIE J. CEPAK, Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-1937-6-25AK)
Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: March 9, 2004
Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Roy Gratton, Appellant Pro Se. Tracey Colton Green, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Stephen Roy Gratton seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and denying his motion to reconsider. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gratton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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

CHUNG KAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. SORIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00873-HSG (PR) 

ORDER SUA SPONTE GRANTING 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights action 

against various defendants at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), claiming that he was retaliated 

against for pursuing an administrative grievance. On April 6, 2017, the Court screened the 

complaint and found it stated cognizable retaliation and due process claims, as well as 

supplemental state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the 

California Information Practices Act, conversion of property, and negligence. On March 8, 2018, 

the Court denied defendants’ motion to stay the instant action pending resolution of a similar 

action plaintiff is pursuing in state court. However, the Court directed plaintiff to file an amended 

complaint noting that it was no longer clear which claims plaintiff wished to pursue by way of the 

instant action. Specifically, the Court noted that plaintiff had referred to an amended complaint 

even though an amended complaint was never filed. The Court also noted that plaintiff has 

separately filed a request to dismiss his state law claims for negligence and conversion. Finally, 

the Court noted that plaintiff had elsewhere stated that he had never intended to pursue a state law 

claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court directed plaintiff to file an 

amended complaint within twenty-eight days in order to create a clear record on which claims he 

seeks to pursue before directing defendants respond.
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

More than twenty-eight days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint 

or otherwise communicated with the Court. In the interests of justice, the Court sua sponte

GRANTS plaintiff an extension of time to June 1, 2018 file his amended complaint. The Court 

will issue a briefing schedule after reviewing the amended complaint. 

Failure to file an amended complaint in the time provided will result in the dismissal 

of this action without further notice to plaintiff for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

5/7/2018
Exhibit 32.2



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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Noble Roman's, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul W. Mobley,
Chief Financial Officer 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/ Paul W. Mobley
                                  ---------------------------------------
                                  Paul W. Mobley
                                  Chief Financial Officer of Noble Roman's, Inc.

                                  Date:  November 12, 2004
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 26 

Expressing the sense of Congress relating to nuclear power being a necessary 

clean baseload energy source to achieve a reliable, secure, and green 

electric grid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2023 

Mr. DONALDS (for himself, Mr. FOSTER, Mr. FLEISCHMANN, Mr. CLYBURN, 

Mr. NEWHOUSE, Ms. MACE, Mr. DELUZIO, Ms. SALAZAR, Mr. NEHLS, 

Mr. EDWARDS, Mrs. LUNA, Mr. WILLIAMS of New York, Mr. LAMBORN, 

and Mr. KEAN of New Jersey) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress relating to nuclear power 

being a necessary clean baseload energy source to achieve 

a reliable, secure, and green electric grid. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that in order 

3 to achieve geopolitical energy leadership, reduce carbon 

4 emissions, and secure American energy independence, 

5 Congress is committed to embracing and accepting nuclear 

6 power as a clean baseload energy source that is easily comVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:36 Mar 17, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HC26.IH HC26

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 26 IH 

1 patible with other intermittent energy sources and nec2 essary to achieve a reliable, secure, and green electric grid. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EX-10.1







	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.1




SECOND AMENDMENT

TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





     This SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is executed this 27th day of
January, 2009 by and between AXS-One Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and William Lyons
(the “Employee”).



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee are parties to an Employment Agreement dated as of April
21, 2004 and a First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of August 12, 2008 (collectively,
the “Agreement”) under which the Company retained the Employee to serve as President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company; and



     WHEREAS, the parties wish to effect a temporary reduction in the base salary of the Employee
during calendar year 2009.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and for other good
and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Employee
hereby agree as follows:



     1. Notwithstanding the terms of Section 4 of the Agreement regarding base salary payments to
the Employee, the parties agree to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Temporary
Salary Adjustment Rider attached hereto as Exhibit A.



     2. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and
effect. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original
and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery of signature by facsimile
or other means of electronic image transmission shall be valid and binding for all purposes.



[signature page follows]




 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to Employment
Agreement on the year and date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	AXS-ONE INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Joseph P. Dwyer
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Joseph P. Dwyer 	 
	 	 	Title:  	CFO 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	     /s/ William P. Lyons
 	 
	 	William Lyons 	 
	 	 	 



-2-









 






	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit A




Temporary Salary Adjustment Rider



Employee agrees to a reduction in his annual base salary for the calendar year 2009 from $400,000
to $300,000. Salary payments for the period January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 will be made
in equal installments to the extent practicable, less all required withholding, in accordance with
the Company’s standard payroll practices. Effective January 1, 2010, assuming the Employee remains
in the Company’s employ, the Employee’s annual salary will revert to the prior annual rate of
$400,000, unless mutually agreed otherwise.



Should the Employee’s employment relationship with the Company terminate during calendar year 2009
under circumstances whereby the Employee would be entitled to payments set forth in Section 7 of
the Agreement any such payments based upon base salary will be calculated based upon the Employee’s
annual base salary rate of $400,000 per year.




-3-
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 

ARTURO DUARTE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GARY THOMPSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-00142-RS 

STANDBY ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Court has been informed that the above-entitled action has settled. Accordingly, the 

Court vacates all pretrial and trial dates. The parties are required to file a stipulation of dismissal 

by April 12, 2018. If a stipulation of dismissal is not filed by that date, the parties are ordered to 

appear on April 19, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor of the San Francisco 

Courthouse and show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Failure to comply with this 

Order may result in dismissal of the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 26, 2018 

______________________________________ 

Richard Seeborg 

 United States District Judge
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER -1-

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

Scott J. Sagaria (SBN 217981)

Elliot W. Gale (SBN 263326)

Joe Angelo (SBN 268542)

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

2033 Gateway Pl., 5th Floor 

San Jose, CA 95110

Telephone: (408) 279-2288

Facsimile: (408) 297-2299

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLBI TROESTER-MILLER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 

INC., et al,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00423-EMC

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANT EXPERIAN 

INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

TO THE COURT, CLERK OF COURT, AND ALL PARTIES:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff Colbi Troester-Miller and 

defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. that Experian Information Solutions, Inc. be 

dismissed from this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule

41(a)(2), and that each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 31 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER -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

DATED: May 2, 2017 Sagaria Law, P.C.

By: /s/ Elliot Gale

Elliot Gale

Attorney for Plaintiff Colbi Troester-Miller

DATED: May 2, 2017 Jones Day

By: /s/ Benjamin Chung Lee

Benjamin Chung Lee

Attorney for Defendant Experian 

Information Solutions, Inc.

I, Elliot Gale, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this 

Stipulation. I hereby attest that Benjamin Chung Lee has concurred in this filing.

/s/ Elliot Gale

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties, Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is 

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

Hon. Edward M. Chen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5/3/17

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 31 Filed 05/03/17 Page 2 of 2
Leonard S. TAYLOR, petitioner, v. MISSOURI.

No. 12-9087.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**I, James Mead, certify that:**

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of SL Green Realty Corp. (the “registrant”);

 

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; and

 

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

 
| Date: March 16, 2012 |                    |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|
|                      |                    |
|                      |                    |
| /s/ James Mead            |                    |
| Name:                     | James Mead              |   |
| Title:                    | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00578-CV

CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION, D/B/A CHRISTUS SPOHN 

HOSPITAL CORPUS CHRISTI - SHORELINE 

V.

ANITA H. SOSA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF 

SHAWNA LEE SOSA

On Appeal from the

94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2014-DCV-0727-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 2, 2017
\Aa2^W^"2054 3-QCO\

<Vo Cbvi^V c£ CcivAiml Appeals

^/W-3'l

tyo FeAefo\ Buc&iu ofImjes^galiGfi

^(Hbna/ feEfuloF Texas

MAY 04 2Q15

MW^tokf tevivV c5Kc£r ferc^feS^^^arfebb^fe^to- per^iry .fraud tw1

^m*^^p^^^ putted aqim m k?

"TfeXOS 1AWL lt> GTO5J0U<au 'WWM<*kv " ^ ^^'^<a umxu \tJiXMS [\\ fftU

berqejcrt; to\^WmWmi^pu«t^ found Ajmo %efee\A\feV\cf&A^ *w^VC8r&Zi3 C^x\^\C| Pra\*kW affee.- Sm/
fe&A cs^-\^f^-\W^,t^sJrinY teftuski neuter euer\ kd kirn ikd xhad

•WkA^o^ s\<Aed ^Vwjrsh&cwxi :tWwe horn &m efe fecfefe)Vi^s amM

4A xtaifenftS' awed a<*in ,mtef eam&Joouri, wwer &-aqSX, Vcme or vekries owlAkatxhuje najerrc^ei Ossify /&£ Aulfe Y
wms^teo xwas mMom<mi wkfyfee htrnmweM,Llc

fljyoiieg. ^Kl\a^f|^i.84; uA ^pasted d«jkLos> eM/eoii. ftU^tafi

&moV&M",

owes <£ ^^o&^gH^

x,S^vHsW^£sa\(Tftcxi Ma ieea% ibeuvQ ^esec^k/ "illegally ir^rcec^AedwA^Rosm-eu XUvut,do sUr€Wt% ab^e fefik aire

^^RICK.toVI-Ks€^5AM

Sb^"2>«3p?
James Patrick STOUT, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 12-9652.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Western Division, denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                          TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                            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 Textron Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted
R. French, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 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 to my knowledge:

(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.

                                      Textron Financial Corporation

Date: November 7, 2005                /s/ Ted R. French
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Ted R. French
                                      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer