alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2006289EN.01001501.xml

| 19.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 289/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 289/15

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 83/2006

of 7 July 2006

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 7/2006 of 27 January 2006 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 7/2006 of 27 January 2006 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2005/718/EC of 13 October 2005 on compliance of certain standards with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and the publication of their references in the Official Journal (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2005/718/EC of 13 October 2005 on compliance of certain standards with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and the publication of their references in the Official Journal (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 3i (Commission Decision 2005/323/EC) of Chapter XIX of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘3j. | 32005 D 0718: Commission Decision 2005/718/EC of 13 October 2005 on compliance of certain standards with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and the publication of their references in the Official Journal (OJ L 271, 15.10.2005, p. 51).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘3j.

Article 2

The text of Decision 2005/718/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 8 July 2006, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 7 July 2006.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Oda Helen SLETNES

---

(1)  
  OJ L 92, 30.3.2006, p. 28.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 271, 15.10.2005, p. 51.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3898 

To require the Corps of Engineers to consider benefits to navigation to 

be gained by certain projects, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2019 

Mr. BOST (for himself and Ms. FINKENAUER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Corps of Engineers to consider benefits to 

navigation to be gained by certain projects, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Levee Rehabilitation 

5 Improvements Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF BENEFITS. 

7 Section 5(a)(2)(A) of the Flood Control Act of 1941 

8 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a)(2)(A)) is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(A) CONSIDERATION OF BENEFITS.—In 

10 preparing a cost and benefit feasibility assessVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:27 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3898.IH H3898

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3898 IH

1 ment for any emergency project described in 

2 paragraph (1), the Chief of Engineers shall con3 sider— 

4 ‘‘(i) the benefits to be gained by such 

5 project for the protection of— 

6 ‘‘(I) residential establishments; 

7 ‘‘(II) commercial establishments, 

8 including the protection of inventory; 

9 and 

10 ‘‘(III) agricultural establish11 ments, including the protection of 

12 crops; and 

13 ‘‘(ii) the benefits to navigation to be 

14 gained by such project.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 19, 2009

Ms. Amber L. Slayton

Nichols Jackson Dillard Hager & Smith

1800 Lincoln Plaza

500 N. Akard St.

Dallas, TX 75201

Mr. Randy Doubrava

Texas Municipal Police Assn.

6200 La Calma Drive, Suite 200

Austin, TX 78752

RE:Case Number:  07-1031

Court of Appeals Number:  05-06-01469-CV

Trial Court Number:  04-05872-H

Style:CITY OF DESOTO, TEXAS

v.

JUSTIN WHITE

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-1031Page 1**
The State of



# Fourt **h Court of Appeals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 18, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00647

- CR

Edward HERNANDEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10559 Honorable Mary D. Roman, J udge Presiding



### ORDER

Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, Eddie Hernandez pled nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and was sentenced to ten years in prison in accordance with the terms of his plea

- bargain agreement. On July 29, 2014, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). After Hernandez filed

a no tice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this

court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d).

“In a plea ba rgain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written p lea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor d oes it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately

reflect that this is a plea

- bargain case and that Hernandez does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an ap peal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d).

This appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d),

unless an amended trial cou rt certificatio n showing that Hernandez has the right to appeal ismade part of the appellate record by October 20, 2014

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d), 37.1;

Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order).

We ORDER all appella te deadlines be suspended until further order of the court.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed th e seal of the said

court on this 18th day of September, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Release: #4033-97 (Civ. Action No.    97-CV-3141)****For Release: July 2, 1997****PENNSYLVANIA COURT ISSUES CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF PRELIMINARY    INJUNCTION IN CFTC ACTION AGAINST ROBERT H. RUTMAN****Court's Action Stems from CFTC Civil Action Charging the Defendant with    Fraud and Acting as an Unregistered Futures Merchant, Among Other    Violations of Federal Commodity Law**    WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced    today that on June 25, 1997, the Honorable Harvey Bartle, III of the U.S.    District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a Consent    Decree and Order of Preliminary Injunction and Other Ancillary Relief    Against **Robert H. Rutman** of Ambler, Pennsylvania. Under the decree    and order, Rutman is enjoined, pending a judgment on the merits of the    action, from engaging in fraud, from acting as a futures commission    merchant without registration, from trading for his own account, and from    soliciting additional customers or orders. In addition, Rutman has agreed    to cooperate with the CFTC in providing access to books and records.

The court's action stems from a civil injunctive complaint filed on May    1, 1997, charging that from at least February 1995 to March 1997, Rutman    engaged in fraudulent conduct and other activities involving commodity    futures trading, all in violation of the *Commodity Exchange Act    (CEA)* and CFTC regulations, as previously discussed in CFTC News Press    Release dated May 8, 1997.

In its continuing litigation, the CFTC is seeking a permanent civil    injunction prohibiting the defendant from violating the federal commodity    laws and regulations charged, in addition to other ancillary relief.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                             709
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    13172
<ALLOWANCES>                                      4826
<INVENTORY>                                      14472
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 25982
<PP&E>                                           30859
<DEPRECIATION>                                   19787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   38875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           597036
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        100
<COMMON>                                         55948
<OTHER-SE>                                    (618061)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     38875
<SALES>                                         104664
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                104664
<CGS>                                            99095
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   121527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (383)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               48073
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (64553)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (64553)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (64553)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

600 

CA 16-01331 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

 

JOSEPH SKITZKI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MELISSA NEAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

MELISSA NEAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

FERON POLEON, LLP, AMHERST (KELLY A. FERON OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

KELLY L. BALL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BUFFALO.

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Dennis E.

Ward, J.), entered November 20, 2015. The order, among other things,

granted plaintiff exclusive use and occupancy of real property located

at 766 Auburn Avenue, Buffalo, and adjourned the cross motion of

defendant for financial relief. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the fourth ordering

paragraph is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed

without costs. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order in this divorce

action that, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion seeking a

temporary order of exclusive possession of the marital residence (see

Domestic Relations Law § 234). Contrary to defendant’s contention,

the record establishes that she was a source of domestic strife, which

required police intervention on one occasion, and that, after the

commencement of the action, she purchased a home in proximity to the

marital residence (see Annexstein v Annexstein, 202 AD2d 1062, 1062;

see also Amato v Amato, 133 AD3d 695, 696). We therefore conclude

that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff

exclusive possession of the marital residence (see generally Iuliano v

Iuliano, 30 AD3d 737, 737-738). “In any event, the most expedient and

best remedy for any perceived inequities in a temporary order of

exclusive occupancy, like any other pendente lite order, is to press

for an early trial” (Annexstein, 202 AD2d at 1062 [internal quotation

marks omitted]). 

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not deny her

cross motion for temporary financial relief but instead adjourned the

matter, and thus her contention regarding that requested relief is not

properly before us (see Matter of Lefrak Forest Hills Corp. v Board of
-2- 600 

CA 16-01331 

Stds. & Appeals of City of N.Y., 38 AD2d 979, 979). Defendant’s

remaining contention with respect to the order is without merit. 

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Richard Darrell TRIGG, petitioner, v. Mary Katherine JONES, et al.

No. 17-7638.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2





                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Standard
Management Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, I, Paul B.
("Pete") Pheffer, President and Chief Financial Officer of Standard Management
Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:


                  (1)      such 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 such Report fairly
                           presents, in all material respects, the financial
                           condition and results of operations of Standard
                           Management Corporation.


November 14, 2003

       /s/ Paul B. ("Pete") Pheffer
--------------------------------------------
Paul B. ("Pete") Pheffer
President and Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-50706 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Carlos Eduardo Ruiz-Garcia, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:20-CR-358-1 

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Carlos Eduardo Ruiz-Garcia appeals the district court’s order of 

pretrial detention. Because he has pleaded guilty and the district court has 

accepted his plea, his appeal is moot. See United States v. Ramirez, 145 F.3d 

345, 356 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. O’Saughnessy, 772 F.2d 112, 113 (5th 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

November 6, 2020 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-50706 Document: 00515630140 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2020
No. 20-50706 

2 

Cir. 1985). We lack the power to decide moot questions, that is, “when, by 

virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual 

relief whatever in favor of the appellant.” Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 

150 (1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Accordingly, Ruiz-Garcia’s appeal is DISMISSED as moot. 

Case: 20-50706 Document: 00515630140 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2020
Ann Waldron DAWSON, et al., petitioners, v. CITY OF GRAND HAVEN, MICHIGAN.

No. 17-1024.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Meeting with CME
  
    



  Meeting to discuss the timing of a DCO's acceptance of a swap for clearing.
      
  When
              06/23/2011

  Rulemaking(s)
              VII. DCO Core Principles

  CFTC Staff
              John Lawton

  Visitor(s)
              Tim Doar (CME)Dale Michaels (CME)Lisa Dunsky (CME)

  Organization(s)
              CME


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
EXHIBIT 13.1

               CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY

In connection  with the annual report of Wealth Minerals Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form  20-F for the  fiscal  year  ending  November  30,  2003 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Gary
Freeman, President and 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:

      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 results of operations
            of the Company.



/s/ Gary Freeman
-------------------------
Name: Gary Freeman
Title: President and CEO
September 24, 2004
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, petitioner, v. Richard E. JACKSON, et al.

No. 17-1247.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SS. 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Technest Holdings, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) for the year period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company do hereby certify,
      to their best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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 results of operations of the Company.




**/s/ Joseph P.
              Mackin**
            **/s/ Gino M.
              Pereira****Joseph P. Mackin**
            **Gino M. Pereira****Chief Executive
              Officer**
            **Chief Financial
              Officer****Date: October 1,
              2007**
            **Date: October 1,
              2007**