alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010282EN.01000101.xml

| 19.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/1

---

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 8 October 2010

to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Eesti Pank

(ECB/2010/16)

2010/C 282/01

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 1 of the Council Decision 2010/416/EU of 13 July 2010 in accordance with Article 140(2) of the Treaty on the adoption by Estonia of the euro on 1 January 2011 (1) Estonia fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro and the derogation in favour of Estonia referred to in Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession (2) is abrogated with effect from 1 January 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 1 of the Council Decision 2010/416/EU of 13 July 2010 in accordance with Article 140(2) of the Treaty on the adoption by Estonia of the euro on 1 January 2011 (1) Estonia fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro and the derogation in favour of Estonia referred to in Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession (2) is abrogated with effect from 1 January 2011.

1

2

| (3) | Eesti Pank has selected AS Deloitte Audit Eesti as its external auditors for the financial years 2011 to 2015, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Eesti Pank has selected AS Deloitte Audit Eesti as its external auditors for the financial years 2011 to 2015,

HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that AS Deloitte Audit Eesti should be appointed as the external auditors of Eesti Pank for the financial years 2011 to 2015.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 8 October 2010.

The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET

---

(1)  OJ L 196, 28.7.2010, p. 24.

1

(2)  OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 33.

2

---
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1037

Natural Gas Basis Swap - Southern Star - Platts Inside FERC

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the mathematical result of subtracting the price of the 

NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas futures contract, as defined in Floating Price B, from the monthly 

price published by Platts Inside FERC for the location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC Southern Star

published price for the corresponding contract month.

FLOATING PRICE B

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas 

futures contract final settlement price for the corresponding contract month on the last trading 

day for that contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each shall be valued as the 

contract quantity multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day prior to the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
|   |  (1) |   |  The      Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March      31, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section      13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;    and |   |
|--------|-----------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|   | (2) |   | The      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |   |
|--------|-----|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|                         | BISCAYNE      ACQUISITION GROUP, INC.(Registrant) |                                                                                                 |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                              |                                                                                                 |   |
| Date: May      14, 2009 | By:                                               | /s/ Luz      M. Weigel                                                                          |   |
|                         |                                              | Luz      M. Weigel                                                                                   |   |
|                         |                                              | President,      Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer(Principal      Accounting Officer) |   |
|                         |                                              |                                                                                                 |   |
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-55831) and in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-10429 and 333-48143) of Westaff, Inc. of our report dated
January 22, 1999, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

<S>                                            <C>
/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
--------------------------------------------
San Francisco, California
January 23, 2001
</TABLE>
Case 7:07-cv-05715-CLB Document 2 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned manager of NGA HoldCo, LLC (the Company) hereby certifies to his
knowledge that the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                                                   
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: November 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Roger A. May                                  
|                        |  |  |  | Roger A. May Manager (Principal Financial Officer)
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3156

KIMBERLY DENSON,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent.

George C. Nicols , Attorney at Law, PLLC, of Jackson, Mississippi, argued for

petitioner.

Kenneth M. Dintzer , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. On

the brief were Tony West , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director,

Franklin E. White, Jr. , Assistant Director, and Scott A. MacGriff , Trial Attorney.

Appealed from: Merit S ystems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3156

KIMBERLY DENSON,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the Merit Systems Protection Board

in CASE NO(S). AT0752080612-I-1

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (GAJARSA, PLAGER and LINN, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED November 12, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
#### In re Phillip MACE, Petitioner.

No. 10-1178.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 29, 2010.

Decided: May 7, 2010.

Phillip Mace, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Mace petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court granted Mace’s motion on April 12, 2010. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Mace’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Exhibit
32




Certifications 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 Micrel, Incorporated (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raymond D. Zinn,
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
to my knowledge:




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




2.           That
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      February 26, 2009
            
            /S/ Raymond D.
      Zinn
              Raymond
      D. Zinn
              President,
      Chief Executive Officer and Director
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)












In
connection with the Annual Report of Micrel, Incorporated (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard D.
Crowley, Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:




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




2.           That
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









Date:
      February 26, 2009
            
            /S/ Clyde R.
      Wallin
              Clyde
      R. Wallin
              Vice
      President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-76,252-02

EX PARTE BRIAN SKOLNIK, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. S-08-3093CR-HC-2 IN THE 36 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM SAN PATRICIO COUNTY

ALCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion in which JOHNSON and RICHARDSON, JJ.,

joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

I respectfully concur in the Court’s order that remands this pro se habeas application

to the convicting court for further development of the record. I, however, do not join the

Court’s order because it fails to accurately track the statutory language in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, in that it improperly limits an indigent pro se habeas applicant’s

entitlement to the assistance of appointed post-conviction counsel to situations involving a

hearing on remand. As I previously explained in my concurring opinion in Ex parte Pointer,

in order to comply with the statutory requirements in the Code, this Court’s order should
Skolnik - 2

instead more broadly require a habeas court to appoint counsel for an indigent pro se habeas

applicant whenever the court determines that the interests of justice require it. See Ex parte

Pointer, Nos. WR-84,786-01 & WR-84,786-02, 2016 WL 3193254 (Tex. Crim. App. June

8, 2016) (Alcala, J., concurring) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.051(d)(3) (providing

that an indigent habeas applicant “is entitled to have the trial court appoint an attorney to

represent him in . . . a habeas corpus proceeding if the court concludes that the interests of

justice require representation”)). Because the Court’s order fails to track the statutory

language in the Code of Criminal Procedure by incorrectly suggesting that the habeas court’s

authority to appoint post-conviction counsel is limited to situations involving a hearing on

remand, I cannot join the Court’s order. Aside from my disagreement with the language in

this Court’s order, I otherwise respectfully concur.

Filed: June 29, 2016

Do not publish
#### Roy Eugene JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer SCHWITTERS; et al., Defendants — Appellees.

No. 06-16617.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 9, 2008.

Roy Eugene Johnson, Lovelock, NV, pro se.

Susan K. Stewart, DAG, AGNV — Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Roy Eugene Johnson, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the dismissal de novo, and factual findings for clear error. *O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr.,*502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

Johnson contends for the first time on appeal that he exhausted prison administrative remedies. He states that the prison rejected his grievance because of a pending investigation into staff misconduct. We decline to consider this contention, which is based on facts presented for the first time in Johnson’s opening brief. *See Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa,*384 F.3d 990, 1005 (9th Cir.2004) (“Ordinarily, we decline to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. This rule serves to ensure that legal arguments are considered with the benefit of a fully developed factual record, offers appellate courts the benefit of the district court’s prior analysis, and prevents parties from sandbagging their opponents with new arguments on appeal.”) (citation omitted); *United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir.1990) (“[Fjacts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

The district court properly determined that, on the facts before it, Johnson had not exhausted all available remedies. *See O’Guinn,*502 F.3d at 1063 (explaining that investigation that does not terminate prisoner’s rights to pursue claims internally *630does not serve to exhaust administrative remedies).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11047

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION.

9:20-md-02924-RLR

___________________________________________________

ERIK ROY HILLESLAND, 

CHANMEIKA HILL,

Interested Parties-Appellants,

versus

GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. USA, 

MARLENE GOLDENBERG, 

APOTEX CORP., 

MICHAEL MCCANDLESS, 

USCA11 Case: 23-11047 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 11/09/2023 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11047

BRAD ALDRIDGE, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:20-md-02924-RLR

____________________

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, andGRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Upon review of the record and the response to the jurisdictional questions, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

Appellant lacks standing to bring this appeal because there is no 

evidence that he is, or ever was, a plaintiff in this action, and there 

is no indication that the district court has ever entered an appealable order that caused him injury. See Wolff v. Cash 4 Titles, 351 F.3d 

1348, 1353-54 (11th Cir. 2003); Mickles on behalf of herself v. Country 

Club, Inc., 887 F.3d 1270, 1278 (11th Cir. 2018). 

USCA11 Case: 23-11047 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 11/09/2023 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fero Industries INC., a Colorado corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Kyle Schlosser, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company do hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C.  1350), that to their knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Kyle Schlosser Kyle Schlosser, President and Chief Executive Officer  /s/ Leigh-Ann Squire Leigh-Ann Squire, Secretary/Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer  November 30, 2008  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Capital Resource Alliance Inc. and will be retained by Capital Resource Alliance Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 4798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1393]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Air University Board of Visitors; Notice of Meeting

    The Air University Board of Visitors will hold an open meeting on 
April 22-25, 2001, with the first business session beginning at 8:30 
a.m. in the Air University Commander's Conference Room at Headquarters 
Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. (Five seats are 
available.)
    The purpose of the meeting is to give the board an opportunity to 
review Air University educational programs and to present to the 
Commander, a report of their findings and recommendations concerning 
these programs.
    For further information on this meeting, contact Dr. Dorothy Reed, 
Chief of Academic Affairs, Air University Headquarters, Maxwell Air 
Force Base, Alabama 36112-6335, (334) 953-5159.

Janet A. Long,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-1393 Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 440 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1506

Steel Fixed Swap - US Midwest Domestic Hot-Rolled Coil Steel - CRU Group

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the monthly price published by CRU Group for the location 

specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the CRU U.S. Midwest 

Domestic Hot-Rolled Coil Steel Index price for each business day that it is determined during the 

contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract quantity shall be short tons. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity in short 

tons multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICING AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per short ton. The minimum price fluctuation 

shall be $0.01 per short ton. The minimum price increment will be $0.001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
No. 248.

#### Snowden et al. *v.*Red River & Bayou Des Glaises Levee & Drainage District et al.

Argued January 6, 1932.

Decided January 11, 1932.

*Messrs'. Winston K. Joffrion*and *S. Alien Bordelon*for petitioners.

*Mr. W. E. Couvillon*submitted for respondents.

*Per Curiam:*

After hearing oral argument the Court, being of opinion that no substantial federal question is presented, dismisses the writ of certiorari.