alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022117EN.01034801.xml

| 11.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/348 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/348

---

P9_TA(2021)0378

Visa Facilitation Agreement between the EU and Cabo Verde***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 September 2021 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the Union of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cabo Verde amending the Agreement on facilitating the issue of short-stay visas to citizens of the Republic of Cape Verde and of the European Union (05034/2021 — C9-0116/2021 — 2020/0319(NLE))

(Consent)

(2022/C 117/30)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (05034/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (05034/2021),

| — | having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cabo Verde amending the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde on facilitating the issue of short-stay visas to citizens of the Republic of Cape Verde and of the European Union (05034/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cabo Verde amending the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde on facilitating the issue of short-stay visas to citizens of the Republic of Cape Verde and of the European Union (05034/2021),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0116/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0116/2021),

| — | having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0264/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0264/2021),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Cabo Verde. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

The Board of Directors
Trigon Healthcare, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-22463, 333-26187, 333-26189 and 333-26191) on Form S-8 of Trigon Healthcare,
Inc. of our report dated February 4, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Trigon Healthcare, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and
1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1997, which report is incorporated by reference in
this Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the
aforementioned registration statements of our report dated February 4, 1998,
relating to the financial statement schedule of Trigon Healthcare, Inc., which
report appears in this Form 10-K.



/s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Richmond, Virginia
March 27, 1998
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MURRAY HILL BANK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 8, 1896.)

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals denied. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 804.
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner; Laura V. Studwell, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 581]

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1987, was suspended by this Court’s order dated June 15, 2000 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (273 AD2d 600 [2000]).

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that she has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts *(see*22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application.

Respondent’s application is granted and she is ordered reinstated, effective immediately.

*1149Peters, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
#### Birmingham Water Company *v.*City of Ansonia et al. Annie M. Pulito *v.*Milford Planning and Zoning Commission Giovaninna S. Testa *v.*Carrols Hamburger System, Inc. Town of Wallingford *v.*Salvatore Zocco et al.

It appearing that the appeals from the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County in the above-entitled cases have not been pursued with proper *677diligence, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the appeals be and hereby are dismissed.

No appearance for either party.

Decided June 3, 1975
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2081 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 395
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2081

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 16, 2016

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
            hydroelectric project involving the Gibson Dam.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT INVOLVING GIBSON DAM.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the requirements of section 13 of 
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 12478-003, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section as 
the ``Commission'') may, at the request of the licensee for the 
project, and after reasonable notice and in accordance with the 
procedures of the Commission under that section, extend the time period 
during which the licensee is required to commence construction of the 
project for a 6-year period that begins on the date described in 
subsection (b).
    (b) Date Described.--The date described in this subsection is the 
date of the expiration of the extension of the period required for 
commencement of construction for the project described in subsection 
(a) that was issued by the Commission prior to the date of enactment of 
this Act under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).

            Passed the House of Representatives March 15, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 395

114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2081

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
            hydroelectric project involving the Gibson Dam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 16, 2016

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
#### People *v.*Ott *et al.*

*(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.*

June 26, 1890.)

Argued before Allen and Bookstaver, JJ.

*L. Stickler,*for the people.

No opinion. Motion to vacate judgment entered on forfeited recognizance granted.
**Exhibit32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Southern Copper Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jose N. Chirinos, Comptrollerand 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 of2002, that:

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 
|                | /s/                                     | Jose N. Chirinos |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------|------------------|
|           |                                    | Jose N. Chirinos |
|           | Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer |
|           |                                    |
| August 3, 2007 |                                    |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by section 906 has been provided to Southern CopperCorporation and will be retained by Southern Copper Corporation and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jesse Alston, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 587]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank E Geraci, Jr., A.J.), entered February 4, 2011. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
Listen

# Commission Sends Letters to Government Entities Transmitting Texas Advisory Committee Memorandum on Voting Rights

April 25, 2019

Letter

-  All News 
-  Commission News 
-  Advisory Committees News 
-  Correspondence 
-  Videos 
-  Archives
#### STAPF v. V. LOEWERS GAMBRINUS BREWERY CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 15, 1897.)

Action by Casper Stapf against V. Loewers Gambrinus Brewery Company.

No opinion. Motion granted.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00670-CR

Jonathan R. Spurkosky, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. 646,148, HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Jonathan R. Spurkosky was convicted in a municipal court of record for

failing to maintain financial responsibility and fined $236. S ee Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.191

(West 1999). The conviction was affirmed by the county court at law. S ee Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.

§ 30.00014 (West 2004). Appellant perfected a further appeal to this court. See id . § 30.00027.

Appellant contends in two points of error that the evidence is legally and factually

insufficient to sustain his conviction. Austin Police Officer David Ortiz testified that he stopped

appellant for driving on the left side of a divided highway. The officer said that he “asked him for

his proof of financial responsibility which he could not produce at that time.” During his own

testimony, appellant acknowledged that he did not present proof of insurance or any type of financial

responsibility to anyone. S ee Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.193 (West Supp. 2004). We agree with

the county court at law that this evidence is legally and factually sufficient to sustain the conviction2

for failing to maintain financial responsibility. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979)

(test for legal sufficiency); Griffin v. State

, 614 S.W.2d 155, 158-59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (same);

Zuniga v. State

, No. 539-02, 2004 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 668, at *20 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 21,

2004) (test for factual sufficiency).

Appellant devotes most of hi s appellate brief to a discussion of Officer Ortiz’s

authority to stop him. It is appellant’s argument that if the stop was unlawful, any evidence obtained

by the officer was inadmissible. All evidence, however, including evidence erroneously admitted,

is considered in determining the sufficiency of the evidence. C amarillo v. State

, 82 S.W.3d 529, 537

(Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).

Finding the evidence to be legally and factually suf ficient to sustain the municipal

court conviction, we overrule the points of error and affirm the judgment of the county court at law.

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: July 29, 2004

Do Not Publish
RIO GRANDE BELOW CABALLO DAMLatitude: 32.885Longitude: -107.293Elevation: 4163

RIO GRANDE BELOW CABALLO DAM

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ute Creek Site Page...



Ute Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Vacas Locas Site Page...



Vacas Locas

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mcknight Cabin Site Page...



Mcknight Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grayback Site Page...



Grayback

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Tres Ritos Site Page...



Tres Ritos

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Powderhorn Site Page...



Taos Powderhorn

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Shuree Site Page...



Shuree

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Palo Site Page...



Palo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to San Antonio Sink Site Page...



San Antonio Sink

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Garita Peak Site Page...



Garita Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rio Santa Barbara Site Page...



Rio Santa Barbara

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Pueblo Site Page...



Taos Pueblo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Los Lunas PMC Site Page...



Los Lunas PMC

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sevilleta Site Page...



Sevilleta

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Alcalde Site Page...



Alcalde

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Thoreau Site Page...



Thoreau

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bateman Site Page...



Bateman

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chamita Site Page...



Chamita

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Culebra #2 Site Page...



Culebra #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cumbres Trestle Site Page...



Cumbres Trestle

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Gallegos Peak Site Page...



Gallegos Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hopewell Site Page...



Hopewell

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lily Pond Site Page...



Lily Pond

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lookout Mountain Site Page...



Lookout Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Creek Site Page...



Middle Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to North Costilla Site Page...



North Costilla

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Quemazon Site Page...



Quemazon

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red River Pass #2 Site Page...



Red River Pass #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Senorita Divide #2 Site Page...



Senorita Divide #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Trinchera Site Page...



Trinchera

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper San Juan Site Page...



Upper San Juan

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Whiskey Ck Site Page...



Whiskey Ck

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Summit Site Page...



Wolf Creek Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk Cabin Site Page...



Elk Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Santa Fe Site Page...



Santa Fe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rice Park Site Page...



Rice Park
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10904

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REUBEN A. ALVAREZ, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CR-117-A-ALL

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Reuben A.

Alvarez, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Alvarez has received a copy of counsel's motion and brief, but

he has not filed a response. Our review of the brief filed by

counsel and of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is
No. 03-10904

-2-

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dorothy Jackson, Appellant.

— Appeals by the defendant (1) *411from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered September 28, 1982, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing two concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 6 to 18 years, and (2) by permission from an order of the same court, entered January 24, 1984, which denied her motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

Ordered that the judgment is modified by reducing the sentence imposed to two concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 3 to 9 years. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The errors complained of in the court’s charge are unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the record indicates that the court gave sufficient instructions on the issues of identification and alibi when the charge is read as a whole *(see, People v Victor,*62 NY2d 374; *People v Whalen,*59 NY2d 273; *cf People v Williams,*112 AD2d 177; *People v Rodriguez,*111 AD2d 881), and that the charge adequately advised the jury of the legal principles applicable to the facts of the case so that the failure of the court to marshal the evidence was not error (CPL 300.10 [2]).

Nor did the trial court err in failing to grant the defendant’s motion to sever the counts of the indictment pertaining to the sales of cocaine on June 11, 1981 and June 15, 1981, respectively. It was permissible to join the two sales since the offenses were "the same or similar in law” (CPL 200.20 [2] [c]). The defendant’s motion was, therefore, addressed to the trial court’s discretion (CPL 200.20 [3]) and the defendant has not shown any basis upon which to conclude that the court’s exercise of discretion was abused *(see, People v Jenkins,*50 NY2d 981; *People v Gilmore,*106 AD2d 399, 400).

The record indicates that the defendant’s trial counsel was far from inadequate. Counsel’s pretrial *Sandoval*motion was granted, he vigorously cross-examined the People’s witnesses, presented five alibi witnesses, and pressed the alibi defense in a thorough summation *(see, People v Davidson,*123 AD2d 782; *People v Fuentes,*111 AD2d 766, 767). While the defendant’s attorney chose to fully explore the alibi defense and did not present certain other evidence available to him, we cannot say that the representation was rendered meaningless merely because his trial tactic was unsuccessful *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137; *cf. People v Ofunniyin,*114 AD2d 1045, 1047).

*412The defendant’s remaining contention with respect to trial is unpreserved and, in any event, is without merit.

Finally, the defendant’s sentence was excessive to the extent indicated. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.
(October 29, 1987)

#### In the Matter of Adam P. Nowik et al., Appellants, v Walter Jablonski et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16 to invalidate a "Certificate of Filling Vacancy After Disqualification” designating George R. Stoffers as a candidate for the Republican Party in an election to be held on November 3, 1987, for the public office of Sixth Ward Councilman, Town of Poughkeepsie, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Braatz, J.), dated October 27,1987, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, the "Certificate of *875Filling Vacancy After Disqualification” is invalidated, and the Board of Elections is directed to remove the name of George R. Stoffers from the appropriate ballot.

Although the petitioners are not enrolled members of the Republican Party, they are aggrieved within the meaning of the Election Law because their challenge to the candidate for public office is based upon a failure to follow the statutory requirements of Election Law § 6-148 *(see, Scoville v Cicoria,*65 NY2d 972, 974).

Turning to the merits of the proceeding, we agree with the petitioners that the certificate designating George R. Stoffers as a substitute candidate must be invalidated. Pursuant to Election Law § 6-148, a vacancy may be filled by the making and filing of a certificate where there has been a declination, death or disqualification of the candidate. In this case, it was determined that the nomination of the original candidate was invalid because he received signatures on his independent petition from enrolled Republicans who then voted by secret ballot at the Republican caucus as well. Because the original nomination was void, there was no vacancy created within the meaning of the Election Law *(see, Gdanski v Rockland County Bd. of Elections,*97 AD2d 744) and it was, therefore, improper for the Republican Party to designate a substitute candidate by filing a certificate. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906

 

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

 

I, Paul Gothard, Chief Financial Officer of Medicsight, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)    theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of  Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));and

 

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

 

 
|                   | By:    | /s/  PAUL A. GOTHARD     |   |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Paul  A. Gothard         |
|                   |   | Chief  Financial Officer |
| November 14, 2005 |   |

 

E-1

----
#### MOUBRAY, Appellant, v. MOUBRAY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 6, 1896.)

Action by Margaret Moubray against William J. Moubray.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur. See 38 N. Y. Supp. 459.
#### KING, Appellant, v. HOLLAND TRUST CO. et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

September 29, 1896.)

Action by Barrington King, as receiver, etc., *of*Samuel Schuyler, against the Holland Trust Company and others.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See 40 N. Y. Supp. 480.