alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009216EN.01000601.xml

| 10.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/6

---

DECISION OF THE GENERAL MEETING

DECISION OF THE GENERAL MEETING

of 30 November 2007

amending the Statutes of the European Investment Fund to align the geographic scope of the Fund's operations with that of the competitiveness and innovation framework programme

2009/C 216/05

THE GENERAL MEETING OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT FUND,

Considering that 19 June 2000 marked the entry into force of the amendment of the Statutes of the European Investment Fund which were signed on 14 June 1994,

Considering that, by virtue of Articles 12(viii) and 34, the General Meeting may, on a proposal from the Board of Directors, amend the Statutes of the Fund,

Having regard to the proposal of the Board of Directors of 29 October 2007,

DECIDES:

That Article 23 of the European Investment Fund's statutes, defining the geographical scope of the Fund's operations, shall be amended to read as follows:

‘Article 23

Geographical Scope

The Fund may conduct its activities in the territory of the Member States of the Community, in candidate and potential candidate countries of the Community and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries.’

For the General Meeting

Chairman

P. MAYSTADT

Secretary

R. WAGENER

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00170-CV

Jorge Alberto Rodriguez

v.

Lizzette S. Rodriguez

On Appeal from the

389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F-5500-15-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 25, 2019
OWRD 11510000 - SPENCER CR NR KENOLatitude: 42.156Longitude: -122.027Elevation: None

OWRD 11510000 - Spencer Cr Nr Keno

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Howard Prairie Site Page...



Howard Prairie

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Billie Creek Divide Site Page...



Billie Creek Divide

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fish Lk. Site Page...



Fish Lk.

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fourmile Lake Site Page...



Fourmile Lake
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-77,638-23

EX P ARTE NKRUMAH LAM UNBA VALIER, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1150625-J IN THE 183RD DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Tex as C o d e o f Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag gravated sexual assault and se ntence d to forty year s’ imprisonment. In his p r e s e nt a

p plication, Applicant raises four grounds. This application, howeve r, prese nts
a more serious question. This Court’s rec ords ref lect that Applicant has filed nine prior applications perta ining to this conviction. It is obvious f rom the rec ord that Applicant continues to raise issues that have been presented and rejected in previous appli ca t i o ns or that s hould have been presented2

in previous ap p l ications. The writ of habeas corpus is not to be li ghtly or easily abused. Sanders

v. U.S. , 373 U.S. 1 (1963); Ex parte Carr , 511 S.W .2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Be cause of his repe titive claims, we hold that Applicant’s claims are barr ed from revie w under Article 11.07, § 4, and ar e wa ived and a

bandoned by

his abuse of the writ. This application is dismiss ed. There fore , we instruct the Honora ble Abel Acosta, Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appea ls,
n o t to acc ept or file the instant application for a writ of habea s corpus, or any future appli ca t i o n perta ining to this conviction unless Applicant is able to show in such an application that any claims prese nted have not been raised previously and that they could not have been prese nted in a previous application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Bilton , 602 S.W .2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: Nove mber 16, 2016 Do not publish
datetime,flow volume2015-05-20,761.08074
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                               State or Jurisdiction
                                                   % of Voting Securities        Under the Law of
Name                                                       Owned                 Which Organized
-------------------------------                    ----------------------      ---------------------
<S>                                                <C>                         <C>
National Processing Company                                 100%                   Kentucky
NPC International S.A. de C.V.                             99.6%                   Mexico
B&L Consultants, Inc.                                       100%                   Massachusetts
NPC Services, Inc.                                          100%                   Arizona
NTA, Inc.                                                   100%                   Washington
FA Holdings Inc.                                            100%                   Delaware
Financial Alliance Processing Services, Inc.                100%                   Delaware
Caribbean Data Services, Ltd.                               100%                   Delaware
JBH Travel Audit Inc.                                       100%                   Colorado
NPC International (Barbados) Holdings Limited               100%                   Barbados
NPC International (Barbados) Limited                        100%                   Barbados
NPC International (Jamaica) Limited                         100%                   Jamaica
NPC International (Dominican Republic) S.A.                 100%                   Dominican Republic
National Processing Company International (Fiji) Limited    100%                   Fiji
Northwest Traffic Associates, Inc.                          100%                   Washington

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugh MASTERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10938

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 21, 2007.

Bret E. Helmer, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Raymond J. Rodgers, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant Appellant.

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendan1>-Appellant Hugh Masters appeals the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for theft *505of mail matter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. The district court applied a ten-level increase to the base offense level because Masters was responsible for more than $120,000 of intended loss. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(l)(F) (2005).

For the first time on appeal, Masters argues that the district court’s estimate of the amount of intended loss is not supported by the record. He argues that there is no evidence that he or his co-aider and abetter, Debra Sheffield, intended their theft of the mail to result in loss equaling the $153,408 worth of checks and money orders contained therein and that there was only evidence that Sheffield cashed $300 worth of money orders. This argument is substantially different from those Masters raised in the district court and, thus, it is reviewed for plain error. *United States v. Villegas,*404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir.2005); Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b).

For the purpose of § 2Bl.l(b)(2), intended loss is “the pecuniary harm that was intended to result from the offense.” § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(A)(ii)). “‘Pecuniary harm’ means harm that is monetary or that otherwise is readily measurable in money.” § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(A)(iii)). “The court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss” based on available evidence. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(C)).

In determining the amount of intended loss, the district court relied on the USPIS agent’s testimony that the opened mail found in Masters’s and Sheffield’s motel room and in the motel dumpster had contained checks and money orders with the total face value of $153,408. The agent also testified that Sheffield admitted to cashing two money orders worth $300 taken from the stolen mail.

Masters has failed to show that the district court erred in determining that Masters intended losses equaling the face value of the checks and money orders missing from the stolen mail which he and Sheffield had possessed. Moreover, the district court’s calculation of the amount of loss is a question of fact and “ ‘questions of fact capable of resolution by the district court can never constitute plain error.’ ” *United States v. Chung,*261 F.3d 536, 539 (5th Cir.2001) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Masters has not shown that the district court committed error, plain or otherwise, in estimating the amount of loss.

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.
# L_2009339EN.01002401.xml

| 22.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 339/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 339/24

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1267/2009

of 18 December 2009

on amending Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty of the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 (1) and in particular Article 18(1)(b) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

| (2) | Council Decision 2009/981/CFSP of 18 December 2009 (2) amends Annex II to Common Position 2006/318/CFSP of 27 April 2006. Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 should be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Council Decision 2009/981/CFSP of 18 December 2009 (2) amends Annex II to Common Position 2006/318/CFSP of 27 April 2006. Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 should be amended accordingly.

| (3) | In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 December 2009.

For the Commission On behalf of the President

João Vale DE ALMEIDA

Director-General for External Relations

---

(1)  
  OJ L 66, 10.3.2008, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 338, 19.12.2009, p. 90.

2

---

ANNEX

In Annex VI to Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008, the following entry is deleted:

| ‘E7c | Aung Khaing Moe | Son of Myo Myint, d.o.b. 25.6.1967
  (believed to be currently in UK; went before entered on list) | M’ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

‘E7c

Aung Khaing Moe

Son of Myo Myint, d.o.b. 25.6.1967

(believed to be currently in UK; went before entered on list)

M’

---
#### Northern Alabama Railway Co. v. Inman.

Appeal from Walker Circuit Court.

Tried before the Hon. James J. Banks.

R. T. Simpson, for-appellant.

Coleman & Bankhead, for appellee.

This action was brought by the appellee against the appellant, to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of a cow. The appeal is from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The judgment is affirmed; the court holding that the tidal court committed no error, under the evidence as shown by the record, in refusing to give the general affirmative charge requested by the *defendant.*— L. cG *N. R. R. Go. v.*Bice, 101 Ala. 676.

Opinion by

Dowdell, J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7699

ARLANDO JONES, III, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM SMITH, Warden of the Maryland House of Corrections; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97- 911-AMD) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 16, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arlando Jones, III, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Arlando Jones, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Smith , No. CA-97-911-AMD (D. Md. Oct. 22, 1998). 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
# C_2021082EN.01000301.xml

| 11.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10082 — CPPIB/TPG/The Torstein Hagen Interest in Possession Settlement/Viking)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 82/03)

On 5 February 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10082. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10082. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Exhibit
8.1





List of
Subsidiaries*




Mega
Retail Ltd. (Formerly known as The Blue Square Chain Investments &
Properties Ltd.)




The Blue
Square Chain (Hyper Hyper) Ltd.




Blue
Square Real Estate Ltd.




Eden
Briut Teva Market Ltd.




Bee Group
Retail Ltd. (Formerly known as Hamachsan Hamerkazi Kfar Hasha’ashuim
Ltd.).




Vardinon
Textile Ltd.




Naaman
Porcelain Ltd.




Diners
Club Israel Ltd.




Radio Non
Stop Ltd.





Bee
Square Real Estate Logistic Center Ltd.





Real
Estate Residence Ltd.





Square
Real Estate Tel Aviv Market Ltd.





*All of
our subsidiaries are incorporated in Israel
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Blount International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James S. Osterman,Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)                                     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of thedates and for the periods expressed in the report.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BlountInternational, Inc. and will be retained by Blount International, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

 

Date: May 9, 2008

 

 
| /s/ James S. Osterman   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| James S. Osterman       |
| Chairman and            |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
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 Northwest Pipe Company (the Company) 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), I, Brian W. Dunham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted 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 Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Brian W. Dunham                  
|Brian W. Dunham                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|August 7, 2009
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2125 

To direct the Federal Communications Commission to revise its sponsorship 

identification rules so as to require the disclosure of the names of 

significant donors to persons paying for or furnishing broadcast matter 

or origination cablecasting matter that is political matter or matter 

involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public importance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Mr. YARMUTH (for himself, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. 

BUTTERFIELD, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. COHEN, Mr. DEUTCH, 

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. BEN RAY

LUJA ́N of New Mexico, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MCNERNEY, 

Mr. SARBANES, Mr. WELCH, and Ms. EDWARDS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Federal Communications Commission to revise 

its sponsorship identification rules so as to require the 

disclosure of the names of significant donors to persons 

paying for or furnishing broadcast matter or origination 

cablecasting matter that is political matter or matter 

involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public 

importance. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2125 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keeping Our Cam3 paigns Honest Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REVISION TO SPONSORSHIP IDENTIFICATION 

5 RULES. 

6 Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact7 ment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commis8 sion shall revise its sponsorship identification rules (sec9 tions 73.1212 and 76.1615 of title 47, Code of Federal 

10 Regulations) so as to provide that, in the case of broadcast 

11 matter or origination cablecasting matter that is political 

12 matter or matter involving the discussion of a controver13 sial issue of public importance, the announcement required 

14 by such sections shall include the names of significant do15 nors to the person the identity of which is required to be 

16 disclosed in such announcement. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 17

- 00803

- CR

IN RE Sandra E. BROWN
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 13, 2017

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Relator, Sandra E. Brown, filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to compel
the Bexar County, Texas , District Attorney to comply with h er request under th e Texas Open

Records Act. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. §§ 552.001

- 552.353 ( West 2012 ). Although a writ of
mandamus is the proper remedy for failure to comply with the Open Records Act, this court does

not have original jurisdiction over the writ; it must be filed in the trial court. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE
§ 552.321(b); In re Turner , 998 S.W.2d 935, 935 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig.
proceeding); Garner v. Gately , 909 S.W.2d 61, 62 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1995, orig. proceeding).
Because we have no jurisdic tion over relator ’ s complaint, we dismiss h er petition for writ of

mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015CR3457 and 2016CR9349W, styled The State of Texas v. Olice Brown
, pending in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.