alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
 Horticultural Crops Disease and Pest Management Research Unit: Corvallis, OR
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Corvallis, Oregon Horticultural Crops Disease and Pest Management Research Unit People Choi, Man-Yeon







Technical Staffheadline bar Kelly Donahue Biological Science Technician 541-738-4030 kelly.donahue@usda.gov  Choi Home


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
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT (23)

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
of MedPartners, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our report dated February
3, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of MedPartners,
Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1996 as follows:

     Form S-8 No. 033-86806 pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan;
     Form S-8 No. 333-11875 pertaining to MedPartners Incentive Compensation
      Plan;
     Form S-8 No. 333-11127 pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan;
     Form S-8 No. 333-05703 pertaining to MedPartners' Employee Savings Plan;
     Form S-8 No. 333-14159 pertaining to Caremark's Employee Savings Plan;
     Form S-8 No. 333-14163 pertaining to Caremark's Non-Employee/Director Stock
      Option Plan and Caremark's Stock Purchase Plan;
     Form S-8 No. 333-16863 pertaining to MedPartner's Employee Stock Purchase
      Plan;
     Form S-3 No. 333-17337 pertaining to the Affiliated Stock Purchase Plan;
      and
     Form S-3 No. 333-17339 pertaining to the resale of common stock by certain
      selling stockholders.

                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

March 28, 1997
# Official Journal C 325/28 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 325 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6028 September 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 325

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6028 September 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 325/01 | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors — Annual accounts of the European Development Fund 2016 | 1 |
| 2017/C 325/02 | The Court’s statement of assurance on the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th EDFs to the European Parliament and the Council — Independent auditor’s report | 139 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 325/01

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors — Annual accounts of the European Development Fund 2016

1

2017/C 325/02

The Court’s statement of assurance on the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th EDFs to the European Parliament and the Council — Independent auditor’s report

139

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rosalind McKinney, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered on January 11, 1984, 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&emdash;Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Lynch, Milonas and JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mohamed Azeez, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 911] —

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Raciti, J.), imposed November 22, 2010, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]; *People v Ramos,*7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 735 [1998]; *People v Foy,*89 AD3d 1103, 1103 [2011]; *People v Pertillar,*37 AD3d 740 [2007]). Mastro, A.P.J., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Hall, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
13.1



Credicorp Ltd.



Certification Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



Pursuant to the requirements
of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as follows:



| | 1. | I am the Chief Executive Officer
                                         of Credicorp Ltd. (the “Company”).
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To my knowledge:
| | -- | ----------------



| | (A) | The Company’s Annual Report
                                         on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 accompanying this Certification, in
                                         the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
                                         fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
                                         Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|Dated: April 28, 2015      |                        
|-------------------------- | -----------------------
|By: /S/ DIONISIO ROMERO P. |                        
|Name:                      | Dionisio Romero        
|Title:                     | Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019182EN.01001001.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2019 — San Domenico Vetraria SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-94/19)

(2019/C 182/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: San Domenico Vetraria SpA

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Must Articles 2 and 6 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) and the principal of fiscal neutrality be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the lending or secondment of staff by a parent company in respect of which the subsidiary merely reimburses the related costs is regarded as irrelevant for value added tax purposes?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                          620,811
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   79,115
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                699,926
<PP&E>                          115,791
<DEPRECIATION>                  1,815
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  965,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           31,950
<BONDS>                         984,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        1,000
<OTHER-SE>                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    965,186
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,327
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                34,464
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              19,627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (51,764)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (51,764)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (51,764)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (51.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (51.76)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 214 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 214

 Designating the week of June 24 through 28, 2011, as ``National Music 
                           Education Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 23, 2011

 Mrs. Murray submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating the week of June 24 through 28, 2011, as ``National Music 
                           Education Week''.

Whereas the National Association for Music Education has designated the week of 
        June 24 through 28, 2011, as ``National Music Education Week'';
Whereas school-based music education is important and beneficial for students of 
        all ages;
Whereas music education programs enhance intellectual development and enrich the 
        academic environment for students of all ages;
Whereas 3 out of every 4 Americans have participated in music education 
        programs, including chorus groups and formal instrument lessons, during 
        their time in school;
Whereas of those who have participated in school-based music education programs, 
        40 percent stated that such programs were extremely influential in 
        contributing to their current level of personal fulfillment;
Whereas music education provides students with the opportunity to express their 
        creativity and to develop skills that will benefit them throughout the 
        rest of their lives;
Whereas the skills gained through music instruction, including discipline and 
        the ability to analyze, solve problems, communicate, and work 
        cooperatively, are vital for success in the 21st century workplace;
Whereas many students have limited access to music education, which places them 
        at a disadvantage compared to their peers;
Whereas local budget cuts are predicted to lead to a significant curtailment of 
        school music programs, thereby depriving millions of students of an 
        education that includes music;
Whereas the arts are a core academic subject, and music is an essential element 
        of the arts; and
Whereas every student in the United States should have an opportunity to reap 
        the benefits of music education: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of June 24 through 
28, 2011, as ``National Music Education Week'' in order to recognize 
the benefits and importance of music education.
                                 <all>
```
#### Volvoville U.S.A., Inc., Appellant, v Board of Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay, Respondent.

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the *801respondent Board of Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay which denied the petitioner’s application for a use variance or a special permit permitting it to utilize its property to store new cars, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berman, J.), entered June 13, 1984, which dismissed its petition.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner’s claim that it is entitled to a special permit which would enable it to use its lot located in Residential Zone C for repairing automobiles and storing new cars, is without merit. The petitioner’s reliance on Town of Oyster Bay Building Zone Ordinance § 105 in support of its claim is misplaced. That section applies to public parking places, not to private new car lots as contemplated by petitioner. Accordingly, that section is inapplicable here.

Building Zone Ordinance § 188 (a) is also unavailing in that the conditions it imposes on off-street parking areas in residential districts presuppose that there is a requirement that such parking exist. In the instant case, there is no such requirement. Accordingly, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to a special use permit, and respondent was justified in concluding that, in reality, petitioner sought a use variance *(cf. Matter of Biener v Incorporated Vil. of Thomaston,*85 AD2d 730, 732-733, *appeal dismissed*59 NY2d 750). The petitioner failed to demonstrate hardship so as to warrant the granting of a use variance. Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
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 Radiologix, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q, as amended, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sami S. Abbasi, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; 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/ SAMI S. ABBASI                                  
|Sami S. Abbasi President and Chief Executive
Officer

Dated: September 27, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Radiologix, Inc. and will be retained by Radiologix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed September 28, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00827-CV

SANDRA CRENSHAW, Appellant

V.

LIMESTONE COUNTY JUDGE PATRICK SIMMONS, Appellee

Appeal from Pre-filing Order

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Miskel

On August 25, 2023, we sent a letter to the parties questioning our jurisdiction 

and requested jurisdictional briefing by September 4, 2023. In our letter, we warned 

appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice should 

appellant fail to file the requested jurisdictional brief. To date, appellant has not 

filed the requested brief. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b)(c).

230827f.p05

/Emily Miskel/

EMILY MISKEL

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SANDRA CRENSHAW, Appellant

No. 05-23-00827-CV V.

LIMESTONE COUNTY JUDGE 

PATRICK SIMMONS, Appellee

On Appeal from a Pre-filing Order.

Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 28th day of September, 2023.
# CA2007144EN.01000101.xml

| 29.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 144/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 144/1

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Image

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Motley, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.), rendered November 15, 1983, convicting him of murder in the *597second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing two indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life, and one indeterminate term of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years, all to run concurrently. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress statements.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant argues that the statement, "Save me, it’s a thief’, made by the deceased seconds after he was fatally shot during an attempted robbery, was improperly admitted into evidence. We find the statement was properly admitted as a spontaneous declaration. It is well established that spontaneous declarations made by a declarant while he is under the stress of nervous excitement precipitated by an external startling event, and during that brief period when considerations of self-interest cannot be immediately brought to bear, possess a high degree of trustworthiness and are, therefore, admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule *(People v Edwards,*47 NY2d 493). Here the court found that the declarant was under the stress of the trauma caused by the shooting and that the declaration followed so closely after that event as to preclude the opportunity for deliberation, fabrication, or design *(see, People v O'Neall, 47*NY2d 952). The court thus properly admitted the statement into evidence.

The trial court also properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress certain statements made to the arresting officer and to an Assistant District Attorney. Defendant sought to suppress the statements on the ground that they were induced by violence and threats of violence, and, as such, were obtained in violation of his 5th Amendment rights *(see, People v Perry,*77 AD2d 269). At the hearing, the court was presented with an issue of credibility with respect to the voluntariness of defendant’s statements. The court resolved the issue in favor of the People’s witnesses. Since the suppression court’s determination is to be accorded much weight *(People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759), and has support in the record *(see, People v Alver,*111 AD2d 339), it should not be disturbed on the appeal.

Finally, defendant’s sentence was neither unduly harsh nor excessive. The sentencing court properly considered the nature of the crime, defendant’s lack of remorse, his prior encounters with the law, and the absence of mitigating factors. On this record, there is no reason to disturb the sentence imposed *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.
The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2641

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal

from the United States

v. *

District Court for the 

 *

Eastern District of Missouri.

Dominic Blackshiers, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: August 20, 1997

 Filed: August 26,

1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, Dominic

Blackshiers appeals the district court&s application of

1

a firearm enhancement to his drug sentence, see U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1995), after

it vacated Blackshiers&s 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) conviction

under Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995).
-2-

After a careful review of the record and the parties&

submissions, we reject Blackshiers&s arguments. See

Gardiner v. United States, 114 F.3d 734, 735-37 (8th Cir.

1997); 
-3-

United States v. Harrison, 113 F.3d 135, 137-38 (8th Cir.

1997).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH

CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 99.3

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

I, Kathleen Bright, as Chief Executive Officer of Radix Marine, Inc. (the
"Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-QSB report for the period ending September 30, 2003
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: November 13 ___, 2003            /s/ Kathy Bright, President
                                        ----------------------------
                                            Kathleen Bright, CEO