alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022361EN.01004201.xml

| 20.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/42

---

P9_TA(2022)0096

EU-Brazil Agreement on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 March 2022 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil amending the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports (13448/2018 — C9-0416/2021 — 2018/0084(NLE))

(Consent)

(2022/C 361/16)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (13448/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (13448/2018),

| — | having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil amending the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports (13449/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil amending the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports (13449/2018),

| — | 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)(v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0416/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

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)(v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0416/2021),

| — | 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 (A9-0029/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0029/2022),

| 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 Federative Republic of Brazil. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
Exhibit 32

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

     In connection with the Annual Report of Mass Megawatts Wind Power, Inc.
(the 'Company') on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the 'Report'), each
of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbaenes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to such officer's knowledge: Section 13(a)

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of
     Section 15 (d) of the Securities and 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

     In accordance with the Exchange Act, this report has been signed below by
the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on
the dates indicated.

                                    MASS MEGAWATTS WIND POWER, INC.


Date: September 19, 2005            By: /s/ Jonathan Ricker
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Jonathan Ricker
                                        Title: Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                        Chief Financial Officer and
                                        Principal Accounting Officer
#### In the Matter of Dale Blank, Respondent, v JoAnne Blank, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

The husband petitioned for custody of the children, and after a hearing the court awarded the parties joint custody of the children, with physical custody to petitioner. In finding that the best interests of the children dictated that they live with petitioner, the court relied upon three factors: that the mother’s extramarital affair demonstrates lack of truthfulness and lack of good moral character; that the mother placed great emphasis on social relationships outside the home; and that there was the possibility that the mother might leave the area with the children.

While apparently heavily influenced by the mother’s extramarital affair, the court also found that she was not neglectful of her children or unfit to handle the responsibilities of parenting. It is well settled that "[a] parent’s infidelity or sexual indiscretions should be a consideration in a custody dispute only if it can be shown that such factor may adversely affect the child’s welfare” *(Pawelski v Buchholtz,*91 AD2d 1200; *see also, Matter of Richards v Richards,*78 AD2d 943).

The denial of custody on the speculation that respondent might move from the area of the marital residence is also improper. A grant of custody can always be conditioned upon her staying reasonably within the area where the parties have resided.

There are no set rules which can be followed to insure that a determination in a custody dispute is infallible, but helpful considerations to this end are set forth in some detail in *1011
      *Matter of Saunders v Saunders*(60 AD2d 701). On remittitur, the court should consider these factors in making its determination.

A Law Guardian had been appointed for the children, but at the hearing the court advised the parties that they had "waived” a Law Guardian. This was error. A Law Guardian is appointed to protect the rights of children, not for the benefit of the parents and, indeed, this is an appropriate case for the appointment of a Law Guardian. On remittitur, the case should be heard by a Judge other than the one who previously decided the matter.

Lastly, we note that joint custody in this case would not appear to be advisable "since the parties have not demonstrated that they have a stable, amicable relationship *(see, Braiman v Braiman,*44 NY2d 584, 590-591; *Matter of Bishop v Lansley,*106 AD2d 732)” *(Matter of Harvey v Share,*119 AD2d 823, 824; *see also, Plumley v Lints,*124 AD2d 1028.) (Appeal from order of Steuben County Family Court, Purple, J. — custody.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Richard R. Davidson., Chief Financial Officer of
Kintera, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: March 26, 2008



|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Richard R. Davidson                                                                 
|Richard R. Davidson Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### REYNOLDS et al., Appellants, v. NATIONAL UNION BANK OF KINDERHOOK et al., Respondents.

(Supreme' Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 8,1896.)

Action by Sarah A. Beynolds and Clarence N. Beynolds against the National Union Bank of Kinderhook and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, without costs. All concur. "
# C_2021423EN.01000801.xml

| 19.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/8

---

Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(2021/C 423/06)

The following information is brought to the attention of Dr. Jassem Mohammad ZAKARIA (No 167), Mr. Abdullah Abdullah (No 229), Mr. Imad Abdullah SARA (No 259), Mr. Talal AL-BARAZI (a.k.a. Barazi) (No 296), Mr. Malloul (a.k.a. Maloul) HUSSEIN (a.k.a. AL-HUSSEIN) (No 309), persons appearing in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1) and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons with amended statements of reasons. Those persons and entity are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the proposed amended statement of reasons for maintaining their designation, by 26 October 2021, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The persons concerned may submit at any time a request to the Council, together with any supporting documentation, that the decision to maintain them on the list should be reconsidered, to the address or e-mail address provided above. Such requests will be considered when they are received.

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 15.1

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-12904) pertaining to the
Employees Share Purchase plan and the Share Incentive Plan of Tikcro Technologies
Ltd. of our report dated March 20, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Tikcro Technologies Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the
year ended December 31, 2004.

|                 |                                    
|---------------- | -----------------------------------
|June 27, 2005    | /s/ KOST, FORER GABBAY and KASIERER
|Tel-Aviv, Israel | A Member of Ernst & Young Global   



---

---
#### In the Matter of Wilma Woodruff et al., Doing Business as Harr-Wood Nursing Home, Appellants, v Joseph D. Castaldo et al., Respondents.

Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-1751

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Lester D. Erby, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 30, 2009 Filed: August 3, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Lester D. Erby appeals the district court’s 1 decision to revoke his supervised release and the court’s imposition of a 10-month prison term as his revocation sentence. Upon review, we conclude that the district court pr operly revoked Erby’s supervised release, see18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(4) (If defendant “as part of drug testing, tests positive for illegal controlled substances more than 3 times over the course of 1-2- year[,] the court shall revoke the term of supervised release a nd require the defendant to serve a term of impris onment not to exceed the maxi mum term of imprisonment authorized under subsection (e)(3).”), and that the revocation sentence--which was imposed following the court’s consideration of the applicable advisory Guidelines range and appropriate sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)--is not unreasonable, seeU.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 (policy statement) (advisory Guidelines range for Grade C violation and Category IV criminal history is 6-12 months in prison); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (specifying sentencing factors courts must consider in revocation decision); United States v. Nelson , 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews revocation sent ence to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia, advisory Guidelines range and § 3553(a) factors); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (for Class C felony, maximum term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release is 2 years). Accordingly, we affirm. We also gr ant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about pro cedures for seeking rehearing and filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________
#### In the Matter of Dillon All Points, Inc., et al., Appellants, v New York State Tax Commission, Respondent.

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Conway, J.), entered October 18, 1985 in Albany County, which granted respondent’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against it in a CPLR article 78 proceeding and authorized respondent to serve and file its answer.

*849CPLR 5701 (b) (1) provides that an order made in a CPLR article 78 proceeding is not appealable as of right. The instant order is an intermediate order vacating respondent’s default and permitting it to interpose an answer. This appeal must be dismissed in that petitioners have neither sought nor been granted permission to appeal *(see, Matter of Redemption Church of Christ of Apostolic Faith v Williams,*84 AD2d 648).

Appeal dismissed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
# C_2009301EN.01000301.xml

| 11.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5667 — ACE/FTQ/FSI/Mecachrome)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 301/04

On 3 December 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5667. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5667. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-13-00257- CV In re Mic hael Ndub uisi Agwu ncha and Mauree n Ob iageli Agwu ncha

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Goodwin and F ield Filed: May

2, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9418]



[[Page 20460]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; 
Notice of Grant Award with Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary, for 
Planning and Evaluation (ASPE).
    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 
(ASPE) announces the award of a grant in the amount of $782,000 for the 
period of April 1, 2000 through March 31, 2001 to Southern Illinois 
University at Edwardsville in support of the SIUE Institute for Urban 
Research. This project was earmarked in the FY 2001 Policy Research 
Appropriation.
    For more information contact Mrs. Adrienne D.B. Little, Grant 
Management Officer, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 
Evaluation, Room 405F, 200 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 
20201.

    Dated: April 3, 2000.
Margaret A. Hamburg,
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 00-9418 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4154-05-M
Exhibit 10.11
 INCREMENTAL BONUS PLAN
 FROM:
    
    Doug Valenti
    
    DATE:TO:RE:
    
    QuinStreet Incremental Bonus Plan
   Company EBITDA > Target EBITDA
 Incremental bonus plan terms
 
    
    Company EBITDA is as reported in the Companys final unaudited annual Income Statement for
the applicable fiscal year.
    
    The amount and payment of incremental bonuses are at the complete and sole discretion of
the CEO, and may not be paid in part or in full, even if financial targets are achieved. This
is to protect the Company from unforeseen changes in business circumstances and unintended
consequences, and to make adjustments if actions maximize personal bonuses but otherwise (even
unintentionally) damage Company or shareholder interests by, for example: increasing costs or
limit growth elsewhere or in the future, or acting in ways counter to Company strategy and/or
best long-term business potential or positioning. Important considerations, among others,
include: margins; growth; client concentration; development of proprietary media, technologies
and other capabilities deemed necessary for defensibility and sustainability; specific
performance of individual, group or vertical.
    
    Incremental bonuses will be paid one time only, usually but not necessarily about 30 days
following publication of approved full-year results. You must be a full-time employee in good
standing at the time of payment to receive any incremental bonus payment at all. There are no
exceptions and no other payments or obligations of any kind under this Plan.
    
    The CEO must have your signed (acknowledged and agreed) Incremental Bonus Plan memo (this
form) on file for you to be included in the Plan and receive a bonus payment.
 Acknowledged and agreed:Date
(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)
II 

Calendar No. 666 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5758 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

DECEMBER 1, 2010 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2 Government Center in Fall River, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Sergeant Robert Barrett Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SERGEANT ROBERT BARRETT POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 2 Government Center in Fall 

7 River, Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as 

8 the ‘‘Sergeant Robert Barrett Post Office Building’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5758 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Robert Bar5 rett Post Office Building’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 666 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5758 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postert Barrett Post Office Building’’. Fall River, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Sergeant Rob- al Service located at 2 Government Center in 

DECEMBER 1, 2010 

Reported without amendment 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS