alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CI2021076EN.01002001.xml

| 5.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 76/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 76/20

---

COVID – 19 outbreak

(Regulation (EU) 2021/267 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2021 laying down specific and temporary measures in view of the persistence of the COVID-19 crisis concerning the renewal or extension of certain certificates, licences and authorisations, the postponement of certain periodic checks and periodic training in certain areas of transport legislation and the extension of certain periods referred to in Regulation (EU) 2020/698 (1)
  )

(2021/C 76 I/11)

Germany

Date of the Information to the Commission: 1.3.2021

Germany has decided, in conformity with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 2021/267 of the European Parliament and of the Council that it shall not apply the following provisions:

| — | Article 5(1) concerning the time limits for the periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers under Directive 2014/45/EU (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 5(1) concerning the time limits for the periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers under Directive 2014/45/EU (2);

| — | Article 5(2) concerning the validity of roadworthiness certificates under Directive 2014/45/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 5(2) concerning the validity of roadworthiness certificates under Directive 2014/45/EU;

---

(1)  OJ L 60, 22.2.2021, p. 1.

(2)  Directive 2014/45/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC (OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, p. 51).

---
Third Department,

September, 1987

(September 3, 1987)

#### In the Matter of Alan F. Galuski, Appellant, v Henry G. Tutunjian et al., Constituting the Rensselaer County Board of Elections, Respondents.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McDermott, J.), entered August 19, 1987 in Rensselaer County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, to declare valid the designating petition naming petitioner as the Republican candidate for the office of Councilman for the Troy City Council in the September 15, 1987 primary election.

Supreme Court properly dismissed this proceeding due to petitioner’s failure to timely serve the order to show cause and supporting papers pursuant to the terms of the order, which required that service be made upon respondents’ attorney on or before July 30, 1987. The affidavits before Supreme *481Court indicate that the papers were "secured * * * on the front door” of the attorney’s residence by a process server at about 11:30 p.m. on July 30, 1987 after another process server had failed to serve the attorney’s wife upon attempting service two hours earlier. The failure to deliver process to a person of suitable age and discretion at the dwelling place of the person to be served *(see,*CPLR 308 [2]), where such service could have been made with due diligence, precludes the later use of "affix and mail” service under CPLR 308 (4) *(see, Rossetti v DeLaGarza,*117 AD2d 793; *Weinberg v Hillbrae Bldrs.,*58 AD2d 546; *Levin v McGovern,*53 AD2d 1042). Accordingly, the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


June 28, 2021


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2075


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2075 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration
Statement File No. 333-254383 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20831-20832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9585]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Realty Action; Mojave National Preserve

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

SUMMARY: Proposed Exchange of Federal Property for Private Property at 
Mojave National Preserve.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sondra S. Humphries, Chief, Pacific 
Land Resources Program Center at (415) 427-1416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public comments will be accepted for a 
period of 45 calendar days from the date of this notice. In order to 
resolve the encroachment of a private residence and ranch headquarters 
on federal land, it is necessary for the National Park Service to 
effect a land exchange at Mojave National Preserve, San Bernardino 
County, California.
    Authority for the land exchange is contained in 16 U.S.C. 410aaa-
56. The land to be conveyed by the United States of America is located 
approximately 15 miles northwesterly from Interstate Highway 15 off of 
Essex Road and contains 40.00 acres, more or less.
    The land to be acquired by the United States of America is located 
seven miles northeast of the intersection of Essex and Black Canyon 
Roads and also contains 40.00 acres, more or less.
    Both sites were surveyed for the presence of hazardous materials 
and none were found. In addition, natural and cultural resource surveys 
were conducted and impacts were found to be minimal. The biological 
survey did not disclose the presence of any rare, endangered or 
threatened species.
    Title to the lands being exchanged will be subject to encumbrances 
of record as well as existing rights-of-way.
    The value of the lands to be exchanged shall be determined by a 
current fair market appraisal and if they are not equal, the value 
shall be equalized by payment of cash and/or donation, as circumstances 
require.
    The 40.00 acre parcel to be acquired by the United States of 
America will enable the National Park Service to further protect 
critical Desert Tortoise Habitat within the Preserve.
    Detailed information concerning this proposal, land descriptions, 
Land Protection Plan and other information are available at the 
National Park Service, Pacific Land Resources Program Center, 600 
Harrison Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, California, 94107-1372.
    Comments will be accepted from interested parties for a period of 
45 calendar days from the date of this notice, and may be submitted to 
the above address. Comments will be evaluated and this action may be 
modified or vacated accordingly. In the absence of any action to modify 
or vacate, the realty action will become the

[[Page 20832]]

final determination of the Department of the Interior.

    Dated: October 6, 1999.
Martha K. Leicester,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 00-9585 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of United Energy Corp. on Form 10-K for the
year ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:




(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 result of operations of United Energy Corp. for the
periods presented therein.




Dated: July 14, 2009
              /s/
      Ronald WilenRonald WilenChief Executive Officer
  Dated: July 14, 2009
            /s/
      James McKeeverJames
      McKeeverInterim
      Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 21002)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

the meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussion could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                        National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, 05/2000 ZNS-1 SRB-W (03).                    

*Date:*                        April 27, 2000.                    

*Time:*                        12 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                        To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                        6001 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                        Alan L. Willard, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd. Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-9223.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 11, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-9721  Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark David Swift, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Luis Ñeco, J.), rendered on November 10, 1983, 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 — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
**EXHIBIT21.1**

Subsidiariesof Edgewater Technology, Inc. as of December 31, 2005. EdgewaterTechnology, Inc. owns one hundred percent (100%) of the issued andoutstanding shares of each of the following subsidiaries.

| Subsidiary                                  | ** ** | ** **          | ** ** | State or Country of Origin | ** ** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------|------------|----------------------------|------------|------------|
| Edgewater  Technology (Delaware), Inc. |       | Delaware, USA       |
| Edgewater  Technology (Europe) Limited      |       | United Kingdom      |
| Edgewater  Technology Securities Corp.      |       | Massachusetts,  USA |
| Edgewater  Technology (Virginia), Inc. |       | Virginia, USA       |
| Edgewater  Technology-Ranzal, Inc.     |       | Delaware, USA       |

 

 

----
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Leon BRUNDIDGE, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant. UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. William A. MARSHALL, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant. UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Julius L. OLIVER, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant.

Nos. 30,310, 30,233 and 30,236.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

Aug. 22, 1975.

*Lieutenant Colonel James Kucera, Captain Robert D. Jones, Captain Jay Sacks Cohen, Captain Theodore H. Watts, Captain R. Stuart Broom, Captain Ronald Lewis Gallant,*and *Captain Ralph E. Sharpe*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Donald W. Hansen, Major Steven M. Werner, Captain John R. Erck,*and *Captain Nancy M. Giorno*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In each of these cases, a pretrial agreement between the accused and the convening authority included a condition limiting the accused’s presentation at trial of motions on matters “other than jurisdiction” before entry of a plea of guilty. We condemned such a limitation in *United States v. Holland,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 442, 50 C.M.R. 461, 1 M.J. 58 (1975). Accordingly, as in *Holland, we*reverse the decision of the Court of Military Review and set aside the findings of guilty and the sentence in each case. The record of trial of each accused is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the original or other competent convening authority. A rehearing in each instance may be ordered.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JANUARY 22, 2010

JOHN LEY

ACTING CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-13481

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 00-06015-CR-WJZ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONALD T. ROBERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(January 22, 2010)

Before CARNES, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Donald T. Roberson appeals the district court’s decision in an 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) proceeding not to reduce his sentence beneath the low end of the

guidelines range. Thanks to Sentencing Guidelines Amendments 706 and 711

reducing the base offense level for crack cocaine offenses, Roberson had obtained

a five-month reduction, to the low end of the applicable range. The district court

had previously rejected three motions by Roberson for a reduced sentence.

Roberson concedes that our holding in United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190,

1193–94 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2382 (2009), barred the district court

from reducing his sentence past the low end; and moreover that neither United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), nor Kimbrough v. United

States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), prohibit Congress or the Sentencing

Commission from limiting the discretion of a court under § 3582(c)(2). We are

bound to follow an on-point ruling by a prior panel unless and until the panel is

overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court or our own Court sitting en banc. United

States v. Douglas, 576 F.3d 1216, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009). Finding no error, we

affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

2
#### Turner *v.*Beavan.

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

October, 1889.)

Slander—Pleading—Bill of Particulars.

In an action for slander, plaintiff will be required to furnish a bill of particulars giving the name of at least one person present on each of the occasions on which the alleged slander was uttered. Following *Mempewolf*v. *Mills,*53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 105.

Action by Albert E. Turner against Jeffrey Beavan for slander. Defendant moves for a bill of particulars.

*Henry B. Johnson,*for plaintiff. *James C. Colgate,*for defendant.

Daly, J.

I will follow the ruling in the case of *Dempewolf v. Hills,*53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 105, and order the plaintiff to furnish a bill of particulars giving the name of at least one present at each of the occasions on which the alleged slander was uttered, so that defendant may know with certainty the occasion on which the complaint refers. Mo costs.
#### ACKLEY et al., Plaintiffs, v. READING TRUST CO., Defendant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by J. Edward Ackley and another against the Reading Trust Company.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PARKER, JJ.

R. Foster, for plaintiffs.

G. S. Coleman, for defendant

No opinion. Exceptions overruled, and judgment ordered on verdict, with costs.
#### William Penn Motor Indemnity Exchange, Appellant, *v.*Tannous.

July 9, 1925:

Argued April 21, 1925.

Appeal No. 213, April T., 1925, by plaintiff from judgment of C. P. Beaver County, March T., 1923, No. 150, in the case of William Penn Motor Indemnity Exchange v. George Tannous.

Before Henderson, Tkexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrof, JJ.

Affirmed.

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

This appeal was argued with No. 169, April T., 1925, in which an opinion was filed today. The suit was brought by the William Penn Motor Indemnity Exchange, without the intervention of the attorney in fact, thus differing from No. 169. A liability substantially the same was however averred 'and a statutory demurrer was filed by defendant. Judgment was entered for defendant. Without now considering the reasons stated by the court below for its conclusion, we affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in the opinion filed at No. 169, April Term, 1925.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                     THE FOREFRONT GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

               STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
                                                                         FOR THE THREE
                                                                         MONTHS ENDED
                                                                           MARCH 31
                                                                  ------------------------
                                                                      1997         1998
                                                                  -----------   ----------
<S>                                                               <C>             <C>
Basic weighted average number of common shares outstanding          6,199,504    7,318,398
Add- Shares of common stock assumed issued upon exercise of
     stock options using the "treasury stock" method as it
     applies to the computation of diluted net income per share            --    1,548,361
                                                                  -----------   ----------
Shares used in computing diluted net income (loss) per share        6,199,504    8,866,759
                                                                  -----------   ----------
                                                                  -----------   ----------
Net income (loss) per share:                                      $(1,384,622)  $1,028,361
                                                                  -----------   ----------
                                                                  -----------   ----------
     Basic EPS                                                    $     (0.22)  $     0.14
                                                                  -----------   ----------
                                                                  -----------   ----------
     Diluted EPS                                                  $     (0.22)  $     0.12
                                                                  -----------   ----------
                                                                  -----------   ----------
</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SEDONA PACIFIC HOUSING

PARTNERSHIP D/B/A SEDONA

PACIFIC PROPERTIES AND

GONZALEZ FINANCIAL HOLDINGS,

INC.,

Appellants,

v.

ALFONSO VENTURA AND

MARIA VENTURA,

Appellees. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 11

- 00208

- CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC # 09

- 76115

- 1 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P. 4 3.5, on the judgment and all

costs, both in this Court and the court below for which let execution issue. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2013.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.

Antcliff, J., not participating
#### In the Matter of Stephen J. Williams (Admitted as Stephen John Williams), an Attorney, Appellant. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Respondent.

Submitted April 23, 2007;

decided June 7, 2007

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for sanctions denied.
Order entered April 22 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 22
- 00153
- CV
IN RE FIVE STAR GLOBAL, LLC , R elator
O riginal P roceeding from the 68th Judicial D istrict C ourt Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 20
- 08643
O RDER Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Garcia Before the Court is relator’s February 28, 2022 amended petition for writ o f mandamus in which relator asks us to compel the trial court to vacate its February 18, 2022 order granting plaintiffs’ motion to strike the jury demand . We request that real part ies in interest and respondent file a response, if any, to the petition for writ of mandamus by May 12 , 2022

.
/s/ BILL PEDERSEN , III JUSTICE