alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2008302DE.01003701.xml

| 13.11.2008 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 302/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2008

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 302/37

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 376/2008 der Kommission vom 23. April 2008 mit gemeinsamen Durchführungsvorschriften für Einfuhr- und Ausfuhrlizenzen sowie Vorausfestsetzungsbescheinigungen für landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse (kodifizierte Fassung)

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 114 vom 26. April 2008
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 114 vom 26. April 2008

Seite 15, Artikel 32 Absatz 1 Buchstabe b:

anstatt:

| „b) | in den Fällen gemäß Artikel 31 Buchstabe b und Absatz 2 des vorliegenden Artikels unbeschadet der Bestimmungen des Absatzes 2 durch Vorlage des Exemplars Nr. 1 der Lizenz und gegebenenfalls des Exemplars Nr. 1 der Teillizenz oder der Teillizenzen, die mit den Abschreibungs- und Bestätigungsvermerken gemäß Artikel 23 oder Artikel 24 versehen sind.“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

in den Fällen gemäß Artikel 31 Buchstabe b und Absatz 2 des vorliegenden Artikels unbeschadet der Bestimmungen des Absatzes 2 durch Vorlage des Exemplars Nr. 1 der Lizenz und gegebenenfalls des Exemplars Nr. 1 der Teillizenz oder der Teillizenzen, die mit den Abschreibungs- und Bestätigungsvermerken gemäß Artikel 23 oder Artikel 24 versehen sind.“

muss es heißen:

| „b) | in den Fällen gemäß Artikel 31 Buchstabe b und vorbehaltlich des Absatzes 2 durch Vorlage des Exemplars Nr. 1 der Lizenz und gegebenenfalls des Exemplars Nr. 1 der Teillizenz oder der Teillizenzen, die mit den Abschreibungs- und Bestätigungsvermerken gemäß Artikel 23 oder Artikel 24 versehen sind.“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

in den Fällen gemäß Artikel 31 Buchstabe b und vorbehaltlich des Absatzes 2 durch Vorlage des Exemplars Nr. 1 der Lizenz und gegebenenfalls des Exemplars Nr. 1 der Teillizenz oder der Teillizenzen, die mit den Abschreibungs- und Bestätigungsvermerken gemäß Artikel 23 oder Artikel 24 versehen sind.“

---
#### KLASE, Respondent, v. ERIE R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department,

January 10, 1899.)

Action by Emily F. Klase against the Erie Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
     Balance Sheet at July  3, 1999, Statement of Income at July  3, 1999. Other
SE is retained earnings. Interest Expense is net interest income.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                          2,749,540
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   878,107
<ALLOWANCES>                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                     2,454,533
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                6,112,047
<PP&E>                          3,918,325
<DEPRECIATION>                  3,096,215
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  7,134,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           522,653
<BONDS>                         36,780
<COMMON>                        5,016,468
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<OTHER-SE>                      1,558,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    7,134,157
<SALES>                         2,985,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,988,004
<CGS>                           2,647,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   3,613,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              (34,252)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (591,068)
<INCOME-TAX>                    14,865
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (605,933)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (605,933)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.20)




</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Jeffery A. Blazevich, Chief Financial Officer of Applied Micro Circuits
Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any
filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



/s/    JEFFERY A.
BLAZEVICHJeffery A. Blazevich, Chief Financial Officer




Dated: August 3, 2005
# L_2019219DE.01007801.xml

| 22.8.2019 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 219/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2019

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 219/78

---

Berichtigung des Rahmenbeschlusses 2008/909/JI des Rates vom 27. November 2008 über die Anwendung des Grundsatzes der gegenseitigen Anerkennung auf Urteile in Strafsachen, durch die eine freiheitsentziehende Strafe oder Maßnahme verhängt wird, für die Zwecke ihrer Vollstreckung in der Europäischen Union

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 327 vom 5. Dezember 2008
  )

Seite 31, Artikel 5 Absatz 1

Anstatt:

„(1)   Das Urteil oder eine beglaubigte Abschrift des Urteils wird zusammen mit der Bescheinigung von der zuständigen Behörde des Ausstellungsstaats unmittelbar an die zuständige Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats in einer Form übermittelt, die einen schriftlichen Nachweis unter Bedingungen ermöglicht, die dem Vollstreckungsstaat die Feststellung der Echtheit gestatten. Das Original des Urteils oder eine beglaubigte Abschrift davon sowie das Original der Bescheinigung werden dem Ausstellungsstaat auf Verlangen übermittelt. Sämtliche offiziellen Mitteilungen erfolgen ebenfalls unmittelbar zwischen den genannten zuständigen Behörden.“

muss es heißen:

„(1)   Das Urteil oder eine beglaubigte Abschrift des Urteils wird zusammen mit der Bescheinigung von der zuständigen Behörde des Ausstellungsstaats unmittelbar an die zuständige Behörde des Vollstreckungsstaats in einer Form übermittelt, die einen schriftlichen Nachweis unter Bedingungen ermöglicht, die dem Vollstreckungsstaat die Feststellung der Echtheit gestatten. Das Original des Urteils oder eine beglaubigte Abschrift davon sowie das Original der Bescheinigung werden dem Vollstreckungsstaat auf Verlangen übermittelt. Sämtliche offiziellen Mitteilungen erfolgen ebenfalls unmittelbar zwischen den genannten zuständigen Behörden.“

---
# C_2008281EN.01000401.xml

| 5.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5057 — Aviva/UBI Vita)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 281/04)

On 11 March 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in Italian and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5057. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5057. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
# C_2009010EN.01000101.xml

| 15.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4920 — Haniel/Schmidt-Ruthenbeck/Metro)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 10/01)

On 9 October 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4920. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4920. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory: West Lafayette, IN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Outreach
                        Fact Sheets
                                    Videos
                                    Seminars
                                    Careers
                    Our Lab
                        Phosphorus Removal Structures
                                    CEAP St. Joseph River Watershed
                                    WEPP Model
                                    USLE Database
                                    RUSLE
                                    
                                    Conferences
                                    Scientist Almuni
                                    Local TalksSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area West Lafayette, Indiana National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory Docs Fact Sheets







Legacy Phosphorus Projectheadline bar Legacy Phosphorus Project (PDF Document)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel Melendez, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Benjamin Altman, J., at sentence; Fritz Alexander, J., at plea), rendered on December 8, 1982, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Fein and Milonas, JJ.
# C_2008233EN.01000701.xml

| 11.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5230 — CapMan/Litorina/Cederroth)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 233/03)

On 30 July 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5230. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5230. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Wilson, Also Known as Kenneth A. Wilson, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 803]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Gulotta, Jr., J.), rendered November 17, 2010, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of defense counsel’s brief filed pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:16-cr-00028-TLS-SLC

)

MICHAEL PALMER )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan

Collins, on September 20, 2016, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for Defendant,

and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant under oath on the

record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and of

counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not guilty,

to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and his
right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and is

not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty and that Defendant be

adjudged guilty of the offense charged in Count 3 of the four-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings and

Recommendation be accepted and Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 20th day of September 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

JOSHUA BLIGH, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:15-CV-234 JD 

)

CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES OF )

INDIANA, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Before this Court is the parties’ motion for settlement approval under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act. On May 26, 2016, the undersigned referred this motion to Magistrate Judge 

Susan L. Collins for a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 72.1(c). [DE 33]. 

Magistrate Judge Collins then held a hearing on the parties’ motion and issued her report and 

recommendation on August 10, 2016, recommending approval of the settlement. [DE 40]. As of 

this date, no party has filed an objection to the report and recommendation.

The Court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is governed by 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides in part:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is 

made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also 

receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), however, the Court must only make a de novo determination 

of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to which specific written 

objection have been made. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 72(b). If no objection or only a partial objection is made, the Court reviews those 

unobjected portions for clear error. Id. In addition, failure to file objections with the district 

court “waives the right to appeal all issues addressed in the recommendation, both factual and 

legal.” Id. Under the clear error standard, the Court can only overturn a Magistrate Judge’s 

ruling if the Court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” 

Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997). 

Both 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) require the parties to file objections 

to a report and recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the same. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). More than fourteen days have passed since 

the parties were served with Magistrate Judge Collins’ report and recommendation and no party 

has filed an objection. Consequently, the Court considers there to be no objection to it. 

Having reviewed that report and recommendation [DE 40] and finding no clear error 

therein, the Court ADOPTS it in its entirety and incorporates Magistrate Judge Collins’ 

recommendations into this order. Accordingly, the Court now APPROVES the parties’ 

settlement and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: October 3, 2016 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
#### ENRIGHT v. BOYD.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by James J. Enright against John Boyd, individually, etc.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.