alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2012099EN.01014902.xml

| 3.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 99/149 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/149

---

Tuesday 23 November 2010EC-Japan agreement on cooperation in science and technology ***

P7_TA(2010)0414

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 November 2010 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan on cooperation in science and technology (11363/2010 – C7-0183/2010 – 2009/0081(NLE))

2012/C 99 E/37

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (11363/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (11363/2010),

| — | having regard to the draft agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan on cooperation in science and technology (13753/2009), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan on cooperation in science and technology (13753/2009),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), point (v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0183/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), point (v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0183/2010),

| — | having regard to Rules 81, 90(8) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81, 90(8) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0302/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0302/2010),

| 1. | Consents to the conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to the conclusion of the agreement;

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

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Japan.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

** **

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Tripath Technology Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey L. Garon, PrincipalExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: April 24,  2008 | By:    | /s/ Jeffrey L. Garon        |
|----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                       |   | Jeffrey L. Garon            |
|                       |   | Principal Executive Officer |

 

----
(82 South. 344)

#### HOLLOWAY et al. v. HENDERSON LUMBER CO.

(4 Div. 831.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 19, 1919.)

Courts <&wkey;210 — Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals — Title or Possession of Land-Statute.

Under Acts 1911, p. 96, § 2, suit for the statutory penalty for cutting trees and for damages for trespass quare clausum fregit involved the title to or possession of land, and the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction, so that its judgment was coram non judice.

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Suit by John Holloway and another against the Henderson Lumber Company. From judgment for plaintiffs in the sum of one cent, with costs, plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, and defendant cross-appealed. Judgment affirmed on main appeal, reversed and rendered on cross-appeal (81 South. 867), and plaintiffs petition for writ of certiorari.

Writ awarded.

A. R. Powell, of Andalusia, for appellants.

Powell, Albritton & Albritton, of Andalusia, for appellee.

ANDERSON, C. J.

This action involves the title to, or possession of, land, and the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to determine the same. Section 2, p. 96, Acts of 1911. The Court of Appeals being without jurisdiction to decide this case, its judgment was coram non judice. The writ of certiorari is awarded under the general prayer for relief, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals (81 South. 867) is quashed, with direction to transfer the cause to this court under section 17, p. 103, Acts of 1911.

Writ awarded.

MAYFIELD, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
#### Marlon E. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BEXAR COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and Detention Center; John Doe Rodriguez, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-51170.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 5, 2013.

Marlon Smith, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Marlon E. Smith, Texas prisoner # 368765, alleged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that, while he was preparing a legal complaint, Deputy John Doe Rodriguez stood behind him and read its contents. Smith contended that, in doing so, Rodriguez violated his constitutional rights.

*252The district court dismissed Smith’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) and 1915A(b)(l)-(2), finding, among other things, that Rodriguez was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied Smith’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal.

Smith moves in this court for leave to proceed IFP. By doing so, he is challenging the district court’s certification that the appeal was not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.Ed 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Our inquiry into an appellant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). We may dismiss the appeal if it is frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; 5th CiR. R. 42.2. We review a district court’s determination that a case is frivolous for abuse of discretion. *See Berry v. Brady,*192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir.1999).

Smith’s conclusory allegations — that, for example, Rodriguez “should not be granted qualified immunity” because “he acted out of intent with malice” — do not show that Rodriguez violated a clearly established constitutional right. *See Pearson v. Callahan,*555 U.S. 223, 232-36, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). Smith therefore has failed to show that Rodriguez is not entitled to qualified immunity. *See id.*

Accordingly, Smith’s appeal lacks arguable merits, and is frivolous. *See Howard,*707 F.2d at 220. As a result, we deny his motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, and dismiss his appeal as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). The district court’s dismissal of Smith’s complaint under § 1915A(b)(l) also counts as a strike. Smith is warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 15.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firms

The
Board of Directors

Unilever PLC

We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form F-3 (No. 333-199023-02) and Form S-8 (No. 333-185299) of Unilever PLC of our report dated 24 February 2017, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Unilever Group
(Unilever N.V. and Unilever PLC, together with their subsidiaries) as at 31 December 2016 and 2015, and the related consolidated income statements, consolidated statements of comprehensive income, consolidated statements of changes in equity,
and consolidated cash flow statements for each of the years in the three-year period ended 31 December 2016, and the Guarantor Statements, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as at 31 December 2016, which
report appears in the 31 December 2016 annual report on Form 20-F of Unilever PLC.



|                                     |  |                                                  
|------------------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------
|KPMG LLP                             |  | KPMG Accountants N.V.                            
|London, United Kingdom 
/s/ KPMG LLP |  | Amsterdam, Netherlands 
/s/ KPMG Accountants N.V.

28 February 2017
**List      of Subsidiaries**

| Name                                                            |   | Percentage                  Ownership |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
| KRad                  Konsulting, LLC                           |   |                                  | 100    | % |
|                                                            |   |                                  |   |   |
| MedLink                  USA, Inc                               |   |                                  | 100    | % |
|                                                            |   |                                  |   |   |
| Western                  Media Acquisition Corp                 |   |                                  | 100    | % |
| (Formerly                  Western Media Sports Holdings, Inc.) |   |                                  |   |   |
|                                                            |   |                                  |   |   |
| Western                  Media Publishing Corporation           |   |                                  | 100    | % |
|                                                            |   |                                  |   |   |
| MedLink                  VPN, Inc.                              |   |                                  | 100    | % |
|                                                            |   |                                  |   |   |
| Norika                  USA, Inc.                               |   |                                  | 100    | % |
|                                                            |   |                                  |   |   |
| MedLink                  FE, Inc.                               |   |                                  | 100    | % |

----
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 20 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 20 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 6-4 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 6-4 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04356-AKH Document 14 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04356-AKH Document 14 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 36 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 36 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 36 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05314-AKH     Document 5      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05350-AKH Document 11 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05350-AKH Document 11 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05350-AKH Document 11 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 3 of 3
Clear All

        09 January 2024    

#                     Surface Navy Association National Symposium                 

                 Good afternoon everyone. Thank you, Rick, for inviting me to speak again this year and for your kind introduction. And, thank you for accommodating my request to speak today in order for me to attend the Naval Reactors’ change of office tomorrow between two of my great friends, Frank Caldwell and            

        11 January 2023    

#                     SURFACE NAVY ASSOCIATION NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM                 

                REMARKS AS DELIVERED  Well, good morning everyone. Thank you for being here – more importantly, thanks to Rick, Dave, and Bill for inviting me to speak again! To be honest, as a submariner, when I spoke here last year I wasn’t sure I’d make it through my remarks without at least a few surface            

        12 January 2022    

#                     2022 Surface Navy Association National Symposium Remarks - ADM Caudle                 

                Well, good morning! I’m going to make this really easy. For our representatives here today, you can put me down on the record – I want more ships! I don’t want a CR. I want a bigger budget, and I want more than one-third. Thank you, Roy, for the kind introduction – and a            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
#### MARION G. OLSON *v.*BRISTOL-BURLINGTON HEALTH DISTRICT

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17393.

*Gabriel J. Jiran*and *Gary S. Starr,*in support of the petition.

Decided March 11, 2005

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn. App. 1 (AC 24955), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Whether the Appellate Court applied the correct legal standard to the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim?”
Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 18 Filed 10/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 18 Filed 10/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 30-5 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 30-5 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*KEVIN MARSHALL

*Andrew S. Liskov,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Proloy K. Das,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided April 12, 2005

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn. App. 592 (AC 24373), is denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6241

DAVID M. CLAYTOR, II, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-63-7) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: January 30, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. Claytor, II, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: David M. Claytor, II, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Claytor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Claytor’s motion to file a supplemental informal brief, and deny all other pending motions. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal; 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. DISMISSED
Case 1:07-cv-05296-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/18/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05296-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Torres, Also Known as Chino, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered November 18, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The issues raised by the defendant concerning the vacatur of his plea have not been preserved for review as a matter of law *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Ifill,*108 AD2d 202), and we decline to address them in the interest of justice.

Furthermore, under the circumstances, we do not find that the sentence imposed was excessive. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40357 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ADRIAN RANGEL

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:18

- CR

- 1334

- 1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Adrian Rangel appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute heroin and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, contending that the Government presented insufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew of the contraband that was found by Border Patrol agents concealed inside the altered battery of his car. See United States v. Solis , 299 F.3d 420, 446 (5th Cir. 2002). V iewing the evidence and the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 12, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40357 Document: 00515307413 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2020No. 19

- 40357

2 inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the v erdict, we affirm. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Construed in the Government’s favor, t he evidence suffice d to permit the jury to find that Rangel knew about the contraband hidden in his car’s battery. See United States v. Rodriguez , 553 F.3d 380, 389 (5th Cir. 2008). Rangel’s argument s to the contrary largely challenge the jury’s decision to believe the Government’s witnesses over his own exculpatory testimony and to weigh the evidence against him. We will not second

- gues s the jury’s weight and credibility determinations, however

. See United States v. Mendoza , 522 F.3d 482, 489 (5th Cir. 2008). Notably, the jury could reasonably find that Rangel’s exculpatory explanation for the presence of the drugs in his car was impla usible. See United States v. Diaz

- Carreon , 915 F.2d 951, 955 (5th Cir. 1990). The jury’s construction of the evidence was reasonable, and its resulting decision to find Rangel guilty on each count was rational. See United States v.
Meza , 701 F.3d 411, 4 2 2

- 2 3 (5th Cir. 2012) ; United States v. Lopez

- Urbina , 434 F.3d 750, 757 (5th Cir. 2005). The judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-40357 Document: 00515307413 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2020
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1677 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1677

       To repeal certain foreign affairs reporting requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2019

  Mr. Yoho (for himself, Mr. Connolly, and Mr. McCaul) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To repeal certain foreign affairs reporting requirements.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) In General.--The following provisions of law are repealed:
            (1) Section 404 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act (22 
        U.S.C. 2593b), relating to public annual report on world 
        military expenditures and arms transfers.
            (2) Section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a 
        Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe'', approved 
        June 3, 1976 (Public Law 94-304; 22 U.S.C. 3005), relating to 
        annual report on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in 
        Europe.
            (3) Subsection (c) of section 702 of the Foreign Service 
        Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4022), relating to annual report on 
        foreign language competence.
            (4) Subsection (b) of section 502 of the International 
        Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985 (22 U.S.C. 
        2349aa-7), relating to report on assistance relating to 
        international terrorism.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 502 of the International 
Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985 (22 U.S.C. 2349aa-7) 
is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).
                                 <all>
```