alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023177EN.01014401.xml

| 17.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 177/144 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 177/144

---

P9_TA(2022)0439

‘Macro-Financial Assistance+’ instrument for providing support to Ukraine for 2023

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2022 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an instrument for providing support to Ukraine for 2023 (macro-financial assistance +) (15727/2022 — C9-0424/2022 — 2022/0371(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading)

(2023/C 177/22)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Council position at first reading (15727/2022 — C9-0424/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council position at first reading (15727/2022 — C9-0424/2022),

| — | having regard to its position at first reading (1) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2022)0597), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its position at first reading (1) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2022)0597),

| — | having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

| — | having regard to Rules 67 and 163 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 67 and 163 of its Rules of Procedure,

| 1. | Approves the Council position at first reading; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the Council position; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council, in accordance with Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

5.

---

(1)  Texts adopted, 24.11.2022, P9_TA(2022)0412.

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Embraer – Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A.:

We consent to the use in RegistrationStatement No. 333-14018 of Embraer – Empresa Brasileira de AeronáuticaS.A. on Form F-3, as amended from time to time, and in Registration StatementNo. 333-100173 on Form S-8 of Embraer – Empresa Brasileira deAeronáutica S.A. of our report dated May 25, 2005 on the consolidatedfinancial statements of Embraer – Empresa Brasileira de AeronáuticaS.A. as of December 31, 2003 and 2004 and for the years ended December 31, 2002,2003 and 2004, which report expresses an unqualified opinion, appearing in theAnnual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004, which isincorporated by reference in such Registration Statements.

| /s/ DELOITTE TOUCHE   TOHMATSU |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   |
| São Paulo, Brazil         |   |
| June 29, 2005                  |   |
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, we have determined that this opinion should not be published and

is not precedent, except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________ No. 97-11084

Summary Calendar

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUSTIN C. HOWARD,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:92-CR-300-R)

February 11, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Justin C. Howard, Jr., who pled guilty to a single count of wire fraud in 1993, appeals the

district court’s order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct a

clerical error in his conviction. He argues that the district court’s written judgment does not reflect

accurately the sentence actually imposed by the district court at his sentence hearing. Specifically,

he contends that the written judgment fails to reflect that the district court ordered his federal

sentence to run concurrently with his ten-year state sentence.

We note init ially that Howard filed an untimely notice of appea l under Federal Rul e of

Appellate Procedure 4(b), because he filed it mo re than ten days after the district court denied his

Rule 36 motion. We el

ect to treat Howard’s Rul e 36 m oti on, however, as a m

oti on to correct

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. S ee U nited States v. Hunt , 940 F.2d 130, 131 (5 t h Cir.

199 1)(treati ng p ro se defendant’s Rule 35 motion as a § 2255 motion for jurisdiction purposes);-2-

United States v. De Los Reyes

, 842 F.2d 755, 757 (5 th Cir. 1988). Treating it as such means that

Howard filed his notice of appeal within the appli cable sixty-day appeal period of Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 4(a).

After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we hold that the district court did not

err in denying Howard’s motion. Howard’s contenti on that the di stri ct court ordered his federal

sentence to run concurrently with his ten-year state sentence is refu t ed by the transcript of the

sentence hearing. See United States v. McAfee

, 832 F.2d 944, 946 (5 th Cir. 1987)(“When the oral

pronouncement of sentence does not resolve whether a sentence runs consecutively or concurrently,

the clearly expressed intent of the sentencing judge discerned from the entire record controls.”).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1


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



          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blount International,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James S. Osterman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     (ii) 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.

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


Date: May 12, 2004


/s/ James S. Osterman
---------------------
James S. Osterman
President and
Chief Executive Officer
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Coast GuardU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Search
Search

Search

-  Home    -  News Room             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Forcecom             
  -  Operations             
  -  Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  History 
-  Units    -  Organization             
  -  Coast Guard A to Z             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  Force Readiness Command 
-  Leadership    -  Commandant’s Initiatives             
  -  Senior Leadership             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Operations             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area Commander             
  -  Pacific Area Commander             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Auxiliary 
-  Resources    -  CG Support             
  -  Legal      -  JoinCGJAG             
    -  Legal_Assistance        -  Find-A-Legal-Assistance-Lawyer             
      -  FAQ 
  -  Civil Rights             
  -  Work-Life             
  -  Administrative Law Judges      -  Virtual Hearing 
  -  Newsroom             
  -  Family             
  -  Library             
  -  CG Web Mail             
  -  Return 2 Service      -  FAQ 
-  Community    -  Art Program             
  -  Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts      -  Eagle Scout Recognition 
  -  Coast Guard Band             
  -  Coast Guard Cities             
  -  Honor Guard             
  -  JROTC      -  NEWS 
  -  Special Programs      -  Industry Academy        -  Contacts             
      -  2018 
  -  Trademark             
  -  Resources      -  History             
    -  CGC Eagle 
-  Mariners    -  National Vessel Documentation Center             
  -  National Maritime Center             
  -  National Pollution Funds Center      -  NRD        -  NRD_FAQs             
      -  Trustee_Links             
      -  NRD_DOCS             
      -  About_NRD_Funding 
  -  Boating Safety 
-  doing business		 
-  Join		 
-  Recruiting		 
-  contact		 
-  About		 

HomeResourcesAdministrative Law JudgesDecisionsALJ Decisions 2011

**ALJ Decisions: 2011**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

**

                      - FOIA
                      - Privacy Policy
                      - MHS Notice of Privacy Practices
                      - Accessibility
                      - No FEAR
                      - Whistleblower Protection
                      - U.S. Department of Homeland Security
                      - DHS Office of Inspector General
                      - WhiteHouse.gov
                      - USA.gov

### Stay Connected

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### Anne L. Braisted, Respondent, v J. S. Bullock et al., Defendants, and Robert L. Douglas et al., Appellants.

In an action predicated upon medical malpractice to recover damages, *inter alia,*for the wrongful death of the plaintiff’s decedent, the defendants Robert L. Douglas and Medical Diagnostic Groups, P. C., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Hickman, J.), dated February 3, 1987, which, after a hearing, denied their motion to vacate their default and reinstate their answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, in the exercise of discre*439tion, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is granted.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to enter a default judgment and struck the answers of the defendants Robert Douglas and Medical Diagnostic Groups, P. C., on the basis of their failure to appear for jury selection as directed by another Judge of coordinate jurisdiction. In his decision denying the motion to vacate the default, the Trial Judge indicated that the case was one of the oldest on the Orange County Calendar and that in order to vacate the default he would be required to review a determination of a Judge of coordinate jurisdiction. The record of the hearing on the motion to vacate reflects that the trial court’s ruling, in large measure, was prompted by a concern for the timely resolution of the matter. While we appreciate the importance of the swift disposition of disputes, this goal may not be accomplished at the expense of fairness to the parties.

In light of the appellants’ demonstration of the merits of their defense, the minimal nature of the delay, the lack of any prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of the delay, and the absence of any intent on the part of the appellants to abandon their defense of the action, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the appellants’ default *(see, Kaplow v Katz,*120 AD2d 569; *Tugendhaft v Country Estates*Assocs., 111 AD2d 846; *Heffney v Brookdale Hosp. Center,*102 AD2d 842, *appeal dismissed*63 NY2d 770). Moreover, the strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits mandates the vacatur of the default and the reinstatement of the appellants’ answer in the interest of justice and fairness. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, JJ., concur.
First, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for 

discouraging him from accepting the State's guilty plea offer. Appellant 

has failed to demonstrate deficiency. The reasonableness of counsel's 

actions are evaluated as of the time of the action, not through "the 

distorting effects of hindsight." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Counsel 

testified that he had based his recommendation to reject the plea offer on 

the evidence and appellant's own words, and that it was only after hearing 

appellant's testimony at trial, the full contents of which he "didn't see . . . 

coming," that he realized he should have counseled him to accept the plea 

offer. Further, appellant's case is distinguishable from La/ler v. Cooper, in 

which the parties stipulated that counsel was deficient where counsel's 

advice was based upon a misunderstanding of the legal requirements to 

obtain a conviction. 566 U.S. „ 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1384 (2012). Here, 

the parties did not stipulate that counsel was deficient, and there is no 

allegation that counsel misunderstood the applicable law. Accordingly, 

appellant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that 

counsel's advice, at the time it was given, was objectively unreasonable. 

We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this 

claim. 

Second, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for 

failing to adequately investigate his mental health through a psychological 

or psychiatric evaluation. Appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudice. 

Appellant failed to produce an expert witness or report at his evidentiary 

hearing to indicate what the results of an evaluation would have been. 

Accordingly, appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a 

different outcome had counsel obtained a psychological or psychiatric 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A eo 
evaluation. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in 

denying this claim. 

For the foregoing reasons, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge 

Lizzie R. Hatcher 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) I94Th
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 582 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 582

To reauthorize the public and assisted housing drug elimination program 
          of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2009

Ms. Lee of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize the public and assisted housing drug elimination program 
          of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Public Housing Drug Elimination 
Program Reauthorization Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING DRUG ELIMINATION PROGRAM.

    (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 5129 of the Anti-Drug 
Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11908) is amended by striking subsection 
(a) and inserting the following new subsection:
    ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry 
out this chapter such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 
2009, 2010, and 2011.''.
    (b) Eligible Activities.--Section 5124(a)(6) of the Anti-Drug Abuse 
Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11903(a)(6)) is amended by striking the 
semicolon at the end and inserting the following: ``, except that the 
activities conducted under any program carried out in whole or in part 
with grant amounts provided pursuant to this paragraph may include 
only--
                    ``(A) providing treatment for drug abuse through 
                rehabilitation or relapse prevention;
                    ``(B) providing education about the dangers and 
                adverse consequences of drug use or violent crime;
                    ``(C) identifying drug users, assisting such users 
                in discontinuing their drug use through an education 
                program, and, if appropriate, referring the users to a 
                drug treatment program;
                    ``(D) providing after school activities for youths 
                for the purpose of discouraging, reducing, or 
                eliminating drug use or violent crime by youths;
                    ``(E) providing capital improvements for the 
                purpose of discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug 
                use or violent crime; and
                    ``(F) providing security services for the purpose 
                of discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or 
                violent crime.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                              ILEX ONCOLOGY, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amount)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Three Months Ended
                                                                            March 31, 
                                                                     ------------------------
                                                                        1998           1999  
                                                                        ----           ----

<S>                                                                  <C>            <C>
          COMPUTATION OF BASIC LOSS PER SHARE

Net Loss                                                             $ (6,945)       $ (4,480)
     Weighted average number of shares of Common
               Stock outstanding                                       12,281          12,653
Basic net loss per share                                             $   (.57)       $   (.35)
                                                                     ========        ========

          COMPUTATION OF DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE

Net Loss                                                             $ (6,945)       $ (4,480)  
Weighted average number of shares of Common Stock and
     Common Stock equivalents outstanding:
               Weighted average number of shares of Common
                    Stock outstanding                                  12,281          12,653
               Weighted average number of Common Stock
                    equivalents applicable to stock options
                    and warrants (1)                                      359             572
                                                                     --------        -------- 
Common Stock and Common Stock equivalents                              12,640          13,225
                                                                     ========        ========
Diluted net loss per share                                           $   (.55)       $   (.34)
                                                                     ========        ========
</TABLE>

(1)  This calculation is submitted in accordance with Item 
     601(b)11 of regulation S-K although it is not required
     by SFAS No. 128 because it is antidilutive.


                                      -17-
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5763 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase for 2 years the 

residential energy credit and the investment tax credit with respect 

to solar property with a nameplate capacity of less than 20 kilowatts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2010 

Mr. POLIS of Colorado (for himself and Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

for 2 years the residential energy credit and the investment tax credit with respect to solar property with a 

nameplate capacity of less than 20 kilowatts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Solar Expansion of 

5 Distributed Generation Exponentially Act’’ or the ‘‘Solar 

6 EDGE Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5763 IH

1 SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR INCREASE FOR CERTAIN SOLAR PROP2 ERTY EXPENDITURES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (e) of section 25D of 

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(9) TWO-YEAR INCREASE FOR CERTAIN SOLAR

7 PROPERTY EXPENDITURES.—In the case of qualified 

8 solar electric property expenditures for taxable years 

9 beginning during 2010 or 2011 with respect to prop10 erty which has a nameplate capacity of less than 20 

11 kilowatts (or thermal energy equivalent), subsection 

12 (a)(1) shall be applied by substituting ‘50 percent’ 

13 for ‘30 percent’.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

16 December 31, 2009. 

17 SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR INCREASE FOR CERTAIN SOLAR PROP18 ERTY. 

19 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 48 of the 

20 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at 

21 the end the following new paragraph: 

22 ‘‘(5) TWO-YEAR INCREASE FOR CERTAIN SOLAR

23 PROPERTY.—In the case of property which— 

24 ‘‘(A) uses solar energy to generate elec25 tricity, to heat water, or to heat or cool a struc26 ture, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5763 IH

1 ‘‘(B) is placed in service during 2010 or 

2 2011, and 

3 ‘‘(C) has a nameplate capacity of less than 

4 20 kilowatts (or thermal energy equivalent), 

5 the energy percentage shall be 50 percent.’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

8 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS