alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 348/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 348 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6320 October 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 348

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6320 October 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1515 of 19 October 2020 establishing a European Security and Defence College, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2016/2382 | 1 |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1516 of 19 October 2020 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 concerning restrictive measures against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaeda and persons, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them | 15 |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2020/1517 of 19 October 2020 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union in the Council of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation established by the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean as regards the application for accession to that Convention submitted by the United Kingdom and repealing Decision (EU) 2019/937 | 16 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1515 of 19 October 2020 establishing a European Security and Defence College, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2016/2382

1

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1516 of 19 October 2020 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 concerning restrictive measures against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaeda and persons, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them

15

*

Council Decision (EU) 2020/1517 of 19 October 2020 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union in the Council of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation established by the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean as regards the application for accession to that Convention submitted by the United Kingdom and repealing Decision (EU) 2019/937

16

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Scott D. Howarth, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.



By:

/s/ Scott D. HowarthScott D. HowarthPresident and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 9, 2010


I, John M. Cobb, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.



By:

/s/ John M. CobbJohn M. CobbVice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 9, 2010
Tyrone WELLS, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.

No. 17-7036.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit denied.
##### 



TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ R.H. DillonPrint Name: R.H. DillonTitle: Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 11, 2006/S/ James F. LairdPrint Name: James F. LairdTitle: Chief Financial OfficerDate: August 11, 2006
 26
**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





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Lapis Technologies, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Miron Markovitz,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.





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








May 15, 2006
            /s/ Miron
              MarkovitzMiron MarkovitzChief Financial Officer
* 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 forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50685 Summary Calendar

GEORGE D. IVEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HASSEL R. TERRY, Warden; ET AL,

Defendants,

HASSEL R. TERRY, Warden; JIMMY R. LAWSON, Major; BENNY BOYKIN, Captain; RODNEY GERBERT, Administrative Technician IV; REX

MOORE, Grievance Inspector II,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-99-CV-385

-------------------- June 13, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

George D. Ivey, Texas state prisoner # 824316, appe als from

the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants

on his civil rights claims. Because no fact issue existed on theNo. 01-50685 -2-

quest ion whether the defendants had the requisite knowledge of a

substantial risk of harm, the district court did not err in

granting summary judgment for the defendants on Ivey’s failure-toprotect claim. S ee Little v. Liquid Air Corp.
, 37 F.3d 1069, 1075

(5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). I vey’s conclusory alle gations and

unsubstantiated assertions were not sufficient to satisfy his

summary judgment burden as to his claims that the defendants lied

in an attempt to “cover up” the assault. See id.

Ivey has provided no controlling authority for his argument

that the district court had an affirmative duty to advise him as to

his burden in responding to the defendants’ summary judgment motion

with affidavits or otherwise. He has identified no error in the

district court’s grant of s ummary judgment without allowing the

parties to conduct further discovery. S ee Izen v. Catalina

, 256

F.3d 324, 330 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Siegert v. Gilley , 500 U.S.

226 (1991)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in implicitly

denying Ivey’s motion to file a second amended complaint. S ee F ED

.

R. C IV

. P. 15(a); Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp.
, 660 F.2d 594,

597 (5th Cir. 1981). Ivey has identified a no more than a mere

clerical erro r in the district court’s assertion, in its summary

judgment order, that Ivey was incarcerated at the “Hughes Unit” of

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division.

This apparent clerical error does not, standing alone, cast anyNo. 01-50685 -3-

doubt on the propriety of the district court’s grant of summary

judgment for the defendants.

AFFIRMED.
Franklin H. WRIGHT, petitioner, v. HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.; and Franklin H. Wright, petitioner, v. The Walt Disney Company, et al.

No. 17-6625.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     9
<CIK>                         0001078676
<NAME>                        HCNB BANCORP INC

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          562,648
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                              1,777,648
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                      0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   4,000,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                                0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                  0
<LOANS>                                          24,800
<ALLOWANCE>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                7,102,060
<DEPOSITS>                                      864,336
<SHORT-TERM>                                          0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             131,136
<LONG-TERM>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          7,002
<OTHER-SE>                                    6,099,586
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                7,102,060
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      46
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               119,176
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                      0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                119,222
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                  703
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               54,041
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            64,922
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                         0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                    0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 831,525
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (766,603)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (766,603)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (766,603)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (1.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (1.09)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     4.11
<LOANS-NON>                                           0
<LOANS-PAST>                                          0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                      0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                      0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                         0
<RECOVERIES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                               0


</TABLE>
Opinion issued June 4, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00003-CV

———————————

IN RE ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company asks us to direct the 

trial court to amend its October 23, 2014 order to abate discovery on Plaintiffs’ 

severed extra-contractual and bad faith claims until there has been a full and final 

resolution of Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims.1 Allstate has presented no record 

 

1

The underlying case is Charlene T. Howard and William D. Howard v. Allstate 

Fire & Casualty Insurance Company and Lisa Graves, cause number 14-DCV215228, pending in the 434th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, the 

Honorable James H. Shoemake presiding.
2

reflecting that it has been served any discovery requests on extra-contractual or bad

faith claims, other than a request for disclosure. Allstate has made no showing that 

it has been subjected to discovery requests that are overbroad, burdensome, 

irrelevant to the breach of contract claim, or otherwise prejudicial. Absent such a 

showing, we leave management of discovery to the trial court’s discretion. See In 

re Loya Ins. Co., 01-10-01054-CV, 2011 WL 3505434, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] Aug. 11, 2011, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny the petition for 

writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.
Mary-Ann Bernadette KERRIGAN, petitioner, v. QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION.

No. 18-7241.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
David A. RAMIREZ, petitioner, v. WALMART.

No. 18-754.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota denied.
Dalray Kwane ANDREWS, petitioner, v. Warren L. MONTGOMERY, Warden.

No. 18-6940.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lapis Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Miron Markovitz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

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

November 14, 2004                            /s/ Miron Markovitz
                                            ------------------------------------
                                             Miron Markovitz
                                             Chief Financial Officer
George Leslie MANLOVE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7189.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24869-24870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08996]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0279]


Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo 
Zone--Lake Erie Open Water Swim

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is correcting a notice of enforcement of 
regulation that appeared in the Federal Register on April 20, 2022. 
That notification entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain 
of the Port Buffalo Zone--Lake Erie Open Water Swim. This correction 
applies to the docket number.

DATES: This correction is effective April 27, 2022.

[[Page 24870]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document 
call or email Spencer Phillips, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-3854, 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#334043565d5056411d435b5a5f5f5a434073464050541d5e5a5f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9feceffaf1fcfaedb1eff7f6f3f3f6efecdfeaecfcf8b1f2f6f3">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2022-08428, appearing on page 
23445 in the Federal Register on April 20, 2022, the following 
correction is made:

Federal Register Correction

    On page 23445, in the first column, in the headings, ``[Docket No. 
0279]'' is corrected to read ``[Docket No. USCG-2022-0279]''.

    Dated: April 22, 2022.
James E. McLeod,
Acting Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
[FR Doc. 2022-08996 Filed 4-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Donald SULLIVAN, petitioner, v. Robert Wayne PUGH, et ux.

No. 18-965.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 5207** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JAMES CHINA SMITH, JR., a/k/a JJ , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:08

- cr - 00870

- RBH

- 3 )

Submitted : November 30, 2010 Decided: December 2 2 , 2010

Before KING and SHEDD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Henry M. Anderson, Jr., ANDERSON LAW FIRM, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Carrie A. Fisher, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for App ellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James C hina Smith, Jr., pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base. At his sentencing hearing, S mith objected
to a government witness who testified regarding Smith’s statements following a polygraph examination. The court overruled the objection, noting that it was not relying on the results from the polygraph , but was relying on statements made by Smith himself after being informed that he had failed the examination. Smith told the examiner that he had lied about whether he had continued to engage in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine while on bond. Thus, the court found that Smith was ineligible for a safety valve reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) ( 2006 ) ; U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 5C1.2 (2009)
. We do not find that the district court abused its discretion in relying on Smith’s statements following his polygraph examination. United States v. Hopkins , 310 F.3d 145, 154 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing review standard). Sentencing courts are given wider latitude on evidentiary matters because the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at sentencing
. Id. Evidence may be considered at sentencing as long as it has sufficient indicia of reliability, see USSG § 6A1.3(a), p.s., including hearsay statements. See United States v. Wilkinson ,3 590 F.3d 259, 269 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that “a sentencing court may give weight to any relevan t information before it, including uncorroborated hearsay , provided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its accuracy ”) (citation omitted)
. Accordingly, we affirm Smith’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,395
<ALLOWANCES>                                       748
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,106
<PP&E>                                           4,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                     893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,076
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            88
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,038
<SALES>                                          3,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,120
<CGS>                                            2,691
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,761
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,436)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       8
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,436)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)


</TABLE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00652-CR

Victor Cisneros

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17-10-30261-D

JUDGMENT

This Court’s judgment issued on October 15, 2020, is hereby withdrawn and 

the following is substituted therefor.

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered 

in part and affirmed in part. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED 

AND RENDERED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 4, 2021
Eugene Peter SCHULER, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 17-6655.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Joseph C. CLARK, petitioner, v. Brian FOSTER, Warden, et al.

No. 17-6722.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.