alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2014106EN.01004901.xml

| 9.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 106/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 106/49

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2010/291/EU of 19 January 2010 establishing whether effective action has been taken by Greece in response to the Council Recommendation of 27 April 2009

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 125 of 21 May 2010
  )

In the contents and on page 50, in the title:

for:

‘Council Decision of 19 January 2010 establishing whether effective action has been taken by Greece in response to the Council Recommendation of 27 April 2009 (2010/291/EU)’,

read:

‘Council Decision of 2 December 2009 establishing whether effective action has been taken by Greece in response to the Council Recommendation of 27 April 2009 (2010/291/EU)’;

on page 51, concluding formula:

for:

‘Done at Brussels, 19 January 2010.

For the Council

The President

E. SALGADO
  ’,

read:

‘Done at Brussels, 2 December 2009.

For the Council

The President

A. BORG
  ’.

---
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 39596 (f rev)

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Barret D. SMITH

Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Upon Further Review

Decided 13 November 2020

________________________

Military Judge: Andrew Kalavanos (arraignment); L. Martin Powell.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 6 months,

and reduction to E-1. Sentence adjudged 3 August 2018 by GCM convened at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. 

For Appellant: Major M. Dedra Campbell, USAF.

Before J. JOHNSON, KEY, and RAMÍREZ, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

Appellant’s case is before this court for the second time. In United States v. 

Smith, No. ACM 39596, 2020 CCA LEXIS 214 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 25 Jun.

2020) (unpub. op.), we affirmed the findings and sentence. However, because 

the action failed to include 14 days of confinement credit ordered by the military judge for illegal pretrial confinement, we returned the record to the Judge 
United States v. Smith, No. ACM 39596 (f rev)

2

Advocate General for remand to the convening authority to withdraw the incomplete action, substitute a corrected action, and issue a corrected court-martial order.

On 7 July 2020, the convening authority withdrew the action and substituted a corrected action in accordance with the court’s direction. Appellant has 

not raised any additional issues for our consideration upon further review, and 

we find the corrected action and court-martial order are complete.

The approved findings and sentence were previously affirmed by this court, 

and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c), Manual for 

Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.). Accordingly, our review pursuant to 

Article 66(c), UCMJ, is complete.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-199-000]

                    In the Commission's order issued on March 31, 2000,[1]                                          the Commission directed that a technical conference be held to address issues raised by the filing.                

Take notice that the technical conference will be held on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 9:30 am, in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.

All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             90 FERC ¶ 61,341.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 00-9767  Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### OUR GARAGE AND WRECKER SERVICE 1; Towing & Recovery Association of Ohio, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS; David Wilson; Bobbie Beavers, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 00-3409.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 27, 2011.

Before: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; KEITH and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

1

. In both the district court and in this court, the caption of the case has identified the plaintiff as “Our Garage" throughout the course of this litigation. The company’s name in fact is "Ours Garage,” but we continue to use "Our Garage” in the caption to avoid confusion.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Ours Garage and Wrecker Service, Inc., and the Towing and Recovery Association of Ohio brought suit against the City of Columbus and certain city officials to enjoin enforcement of Chapter 549 of the Columbus City Code (the “towing ordinance”), which regulates consensual towing operations. The district court held that the Interestate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), preempts the towing ordinance, and this court affirmed. *Our Garage & Wrecker Serv. v. City of Columbus,*257 F.3d 506 (6th Cir.2001). The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the decision of this court and remanded the case for consideration of whether the towing ordinance qualifies as an exercise of “ ‘safety regulatory authority’ or otherwise fall[s] within § 14501(e)(2)(A)’s compass.” *City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc.,*536 U.S. 424, 442, 122 S.Ct. 2226, 153 L.Ed.2d 430 (2002). We now remand to the District Court for *537proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
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

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Apri1 14, 2000, 11:00 AM to April 14, 2000, 1:00 PM, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 3, 2000, 65FR17518.                

The meeting will be held on April 13, 2000, from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM. The location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: April 7, 2000.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-9440  Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 99.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 Annual Report of Chesapeake Funding LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), George J Kilroy, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Neil J Cashen, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|/s/GEORGE KILROYGeorge Kilroy
Chief Executive Officer
March 10, 2003
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/NEIL J CASHENNeil J Cashen
Chief Financial Officer
March 10, 2003

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

---

QuickLinks
---

Exhibit 99.5

Summary of Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount ( the “Contract”)

Entered into by and between BAK International Limited (the “Guarantor”)

and Shenzhen Nanshan Branch, China
Everbright Bank (the “Creditor”) Dated August 31, 2010

Main contents:

- Guaranty Contract number:
    GB78241008004-1;
- Bak International Limited undertakes to assume joint and several liabilities for Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (the “Obligor”)’s indebtedness towards China Everbright Bank under the Comprehensive Credit Facility Agreement
of Maximum Amount (reference no.: ZH78241008004) from November 8, 2010 to November 8, 2011, and the maximum amount secured is RMB 120 million.
- Guaranty Responsibility: The guaranty under this Contract shall be guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The guarantor is obligated to pay off the debt in the event the obligor is unable to pay off the debt (including the
creditor declares the debt becomes mature in advance to its original expiry date due to default of the obligor or the guarantor).
- Scope of Guaranty:The guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract compensation, damages, undertaking fee and all the expenses such as litigation cost, lawyer’s fee,
notification cost and public notice cost etc. which is incurred to the Creditor in realizing its creditor’s right.
- Guaranty period: The guaranty period is from the effective date of this Contract to two years after the expiry of the term of the Credit Facility Agreement and relevant agreement entered into under the Credit Facility Agreement.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Payment on demand
- Declaration and guaranty of the
    Guarantor
- Promise of the Guarantor
- Breach of Agreement
- Other agreement
- Disputation settlement
- Validity, modification and
    termination of Contract

---
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11.1


                COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED INCOME PER SHARE
               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND 1999

          The following calculation is submitted in accordance with requirements
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             For the three months ended March 31,
                                                     --------------------------------------------------
                                                               2000                     1999
                                                     ---------------------    -------------------------
                                                                  (amounts in thousands)

<S>                                                                   <C>                          <C>
Net income available for common shareholders                          $516                         $959
                                                     =====================    =========================

Weighted average common shares
     outstanding used in calculating basic
     and diluted net income per common
     share                                                           7,119                        7,215
                                                     =====================    =========================

Basic and diluted net income per common share                        $0.07                        $0.13
                                                     =====================    =========================

</TABLE>





                                       29
#### In the Matter of Marion E. Bard, Respondent, v Douglas L. Bard, Appellant.

— In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Mishkin, J.), dated December 4, 1985, which increased his child support obligation from $600 per month for the parties’ two children to $800 per month.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this proceeding the petitioner is attempting to obtain adequate support for the parties’ children. Therefore, it is not necessary to demonstrate an unforeseen change in circumstances to justify an increase *(see, Matter of Tibaldi v Otten,*111 AD2d 859). The petitioner must establish that a change in *465circumstances has occurred warranting the modification in the best interest of the children *(see, Stevenson v Stevenson,*98 AD2d 718). A review of the record clearly indicates that a factual basis for the upward modification has been established. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 12.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Philippe Ozanian, certify that:

1.    I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of InfoVista;

2.    Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.    Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The
company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:



5.    The
company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's auditors and the
audit committee of the company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|                       |  | By: /s/ PHILIPPE OZANIAN
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Date: October 23, 2003 |  |                                                 

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8072

In Re: ROY HORTON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Prohibition. (CR-93-40)

No. 95-8074

In Re: ROY HORTON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-94-51-E)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 18, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Horton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Roy Horton has filed petitions for a writ of prohibition and

a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to

transfer him back to state custody. A writ of prohibition should

not issue "unless it clearly appeals that the inferior court is

about to exceed its jurisdiction." Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167,

176 (1886). A writ of prohibition is a drastic remedy which should

be granted only where the petitioner's right to the requested relief is indisputable. In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir.

1983); In re Missouri, 664 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir. 1981). A writ of

prohibition should be granted only where the petitioner has no

other adequate means of relief, In re Banker's Trust Co., 775 F.2d

545, 547 (3d Cir. 1985), and may not be used as a substitute for

the normal appellate process. In re Missouri, 664 F.2d at 180.

Horton has failed to establish his right to such relief.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402

(1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other

means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 811

F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute

for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.

1979). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden

of showing that he has "no other adequate means to attain the

relief he desires" and that his right to such relief is "clear and

indisputable." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35

(1980). Horton has not made such a showing. Accordingly, although
4

we grant Horton's applications to proceed in forma pauperis, we

deny his petitions for a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED
# C_2021483EN.01000601.xml

| 1.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 483/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 483/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10508 – HUTCHISON 3 INDONESIA / INDOSAT)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 483/06)

On 4 November 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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 32021M10508. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10508. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PRECEDING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,422
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               2
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          15,278
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            15,217
<LOANS>                                        112,388
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (1,086)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,642
<DEPOSITS>                                     117,351
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,168
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        552
<COMMON>                                         8,303
<OTHER-SE>                                       (787)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 137,642
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,423
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  385
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    30
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,838
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,125
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,138
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,700
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      150
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    393
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         393
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       229
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   0.076
<LOANS-NON>                                        902
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               (1,054)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      118
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              (1,086)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           (1,086)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            255
        

</TABLE>
Order entered September 5, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00882-CV

IN RE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-1-0007

ORDER

In accordance with the Court’s opinion issued this date, the petition for writ of mandamus 

is conditionally GRANTED. The Court ORDERS the trial judge, the Honorable James C. 

Henderson, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 1, Grayson County, Texas, to VACATE his 

January 31, 2013 “Protective Order Regarding Certain Evidence, and Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law Relative Thereto” to the extent it relates to any evidence in the possession of 

relator.

Should the trial judge fail to comply with this order, the writ will issue. The Court 

ORDERS the trial judge to file with this Court, within thirty (30) days of the date of this 

order, a certified copy of its order issued in compliance with this order. We ORDER that 

relator recover its costs of this original proceeding from real party in interest.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE