alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020388EN.01034101.xml

| 13.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/341 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/341

---

P8_TA(2018)0506

EU-Japan Strategic Partnership Agreement ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 December 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Strategic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Japan, of the other part (08462/2018 — C8-0417/2018 — 2018/0122(NLE))

(Consent)

(2020/C 388/36)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (08462/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (08462/2018),

| — | having regard to the draft Strategic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Japan, of the other part (08463/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Strategic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Japan, of the other part (08463/2018),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 212(1), Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) and Article 218(8), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0417/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 212(1), Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) and Article 218(8), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0417/2018),

| — | having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 12 December 2018 (1) on the draft decision, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 12 December 2018 (1) on the draft decision,

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0383/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0383/2018),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 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.

---

(1)  Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0507.

---
Report of Independent Accountants

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
 Salomon Brothers High Income Fund Inc


In planning and performing our audit of the
financial statements of Salomon Brothers
High Income Fund Inc (hereafter referred to as
 the "Fund") for the year ended December 31, 2001,
 we considered its internal control, including
 control activities for safeguarding securities,
 in order to determine our auditing procedures
for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the
financial statements and to comply with the
requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide
assurance on internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for
establishing and maintaining internal control.  In
fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and
judgments by management are required to assess
 the expected benefits and related costs of controls.
  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit
 pertain to the entity's objective of preparing
financial statements for external purposes that are
fairly presented in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles.  Those controls
include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition.
Because of inherent limitations in internal control,
 errors or fraud may occur and not be detected.
Also, projection of any evaluation of internal
control to future periods is subject to the risk that
controls may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the
design and operation may deteriorate.
Our consideration of internal control would not
necessarily disclose all matters in internal control
that might be material weaknesses under standards
established by the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or
more of the internal control components does not
reduce to a relatively low level the risk that
misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts
that would be material in relation to the financial
statements being audited may occur and not be
detected within a timely period by employees in the
normal course of performing their assigned functions.
  However, we noted no matters involving internal
control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities, that we consider to be
material weaknesses as defined above as of
December 31, 2001.
This report is intended solely for the information and
use of management and the Board of Directors of the
Fund and the Securities and Exchange Commission
and is not intended to be and should not be used by
anyone other than these specified parties.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 21, 2002

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Salomon Brothers High Income Fund Inc


	(4)
**Exhibit 32.2**

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION—CFO

In connection with the Annual Report of J.B. Poindexter & Co., Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Robert S. Whatley, Vice President Finance of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

To the best of my knowledge, after reasonable investigation:

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

(2)          The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.
| Date:  March 30, 2007 | By     |  /s/ Robert S.  Whatley |
|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|                            |   | Robert S. Whatley,           |
|                            |   | Vice President Finance       |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part ofthe Report or as a separate disclosure document.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
 I, W. Anderson Geater, Jr., certify that:
 1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Origen Financial, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)), and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(g)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
   /s/ W. Anderson Geater, Jr.

W. Anderson Geater, Jr.,
    
    
    
    Dated: May 9, 2007Chief Financial Officer of Origen Financial, Inc.
 34
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7887

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERTO E. DELEON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:09-cr-00095-RDB-1; 1:15-cv-00299-RDB)

Submitted: March 30, 2016 Decided: April 6, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Justin Brown, LAW OFFICE OF C. JUSTIN BROWN, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Paul E. Budlow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roberto E. DeLeon seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

DeLeon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

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

In connection withthe annual report on Form 10-K of BioSphere Medical, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, RichardJ. Faleschini, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: March 29, 2005 | /s/  RICHARD  J. FALESCHINI             |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                       | Richard J.  Faleschini                       |
|                       | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |
|                       | *(principal  executive officer)*             |

 

1

----
# C_2018067EN.01000201.xml

| 22.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8755 — PAI/BCIMC/Refresco)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 67/02)

On 14 February 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8755. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8755. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Devona HOLLINGSWORTH, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

No. 19-586.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Nelson, a Peoples Bank employee, died in October 1994. Appellants never

1

filed a motion for substitution of another party or appealed the dismissal of their claims

asserted against him.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-1771

___________

Bobbie James; Billie J. Denton, *

*

Plaintiffs - Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United

v. * States District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Peoples Bank and Trust Company *

of Mountain Home; Lula Mae * [UNPUBLISHED]

Willmer; Neil Nelson, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 19, 1997

Filed: September 26, 1997

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In June 1994, Bobbie James and Billie J. Denton filed this diversity action

against Peoples Bank and Trust Company (Peoples Bank) and two of its employees,

Lula Mae Willmer and Neil Nelson, asserting breaches of fiduciary duties and fraud. 1
The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, United States District Judge for the Western 2

District of Arkansas.

-2-

The district court concluded James and Denton's claims were barred by Arkansas'

2

statute of limitations and granted summary judgment in favor of Peoples Bank and

Willmer. We affirm.

According to James and Denton's allegations, their father, Wylo M. Dyer,

created an irrevocable trust that provided for the termination and distribution of the

trust's corpus and income upon his death. Dyer died in 1982. Nelson had been the

trustee until May 1985, at which time Peoples Bank became the successor trustee.

Willmer began tending for James and Denton's mother, Elsie Dyer, in 1988.

James and Denton raise three claims: 1) Nelson and Peoples Bank breached their

fiduciary duties as trustees by failing to terminate the trust and distribute the trust

corpus upon Dyer's death; 2) Willmer exerted undue influence on their mother, Elsie

M. Dyer, to make a new will in November 1988 and add Willmer as a beneficiary, and

that Willmer withdrew $56,000 from Elsie Dyer's account after fraudulently adding her

name to Elsie Dyer's checking account and safe deposit box; and 3) Peoples Bank

breached its fiduciary duty as personal representative of Elsie Dyer's estate by failing

to monitor Willmer and filing to protect and recover Elsie Dyer's assets. James and

Denton also contend that the limitations period should be tolled.

We conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in

favor of Peoples Bank and Willmer since the suit was not timely filed. See Alexander

v. Flake, 910 S.W.2d 190, 191 (Ark. 1995) (standard for summary judgment under

Arkansas law). The applicable statute of limitations is three years. The plaintiffs filed

their claims in 1994, more than three years after any of their causes of action arose.

James and Denton also have not shown that the limitations period was tolled or that

Peoples Bank and Willmer should be estopped from pleading a limitations defense.
-3-

Finally, the motion to strike made by Peoples Bank is denied as moot.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Frank D. MONSEGUE, Sr., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6196

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2018300EN.01000102.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9039 — Bain Capital/Vista/Aptean Public Sector/Superion/Tritech)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 300/02)

On 17 August 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9039. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9039. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
John FORREST, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6643

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Walter BARTON, Petitioner v. William STANGE, Warden

No. 19-5570

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# C_2018012EN.01001701.xml

| 13.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 12/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 12/17

---

Special Report No 1/2018

‘Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions (JASPERS) — time for better targeting’

(2018/C 12/08)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 1/2018 ‘Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions (JASPERS) — time for better targeting’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
Frank LOBACZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5255

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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





CERTIFICATIONS


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cabela’s Incorporated  (the “registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended  July 3, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), each of the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to his knowledge:





(1)      the report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)      the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.








Dated:  July 30, 2010


/s/ Thomas L. MillnerThomas L. Millner

President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Ralph W. CastnerRalph W. Castner

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
















Back to Form 10-Q
238 F.2d 234

#### A. B. PHILLIPS, Executive Director, Employment Security Commission of Alaska, Appellant, v. FIDALGO ISLAND PACKING CO., Appellee, Clara Wilson, Intervenor.

No. 14505.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 21, 1956.

Writ of Certiorari Denied Dec. 10, 1956.

See 77 S.Ct. 262.

*339J. Gerald Williams, Atty. Gen., Edward A. Merdes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Territory of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, for appellant.

H. L. Faulkner, Faulkner, Banfield & Boochever, Juneau, Alaska, for appellee.

Before HEALY, FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges.

*340PER CURIAM.

**In the petition for rehearing, appellant misreads the per curiam opinion of this Court. There was no intention in that opinion to controvert well established principles. Where an administrative agency or officer has been given jurisdiction over the subject matter of a field, the presumption of validity of the regulations and acts of such agency or officer applies. Here the jurisdiction of the old commission over the subject matter had expired by abolition of the agency. The delegated power to the Executive Director of the old commission expired when it went out of existence. The rulings may be explained upon principles of agency as well as upon grounds of lack of jurisdiction. If the new commission desired to delegate power to the Executive Director, it could not act before its creation and assumption of authority. His purported action in the interim between the expiration of his delegation of power-by the old commission and the organization of the new commission was void, not voidable, because no body had jurisdiction of the subject matter at the time and he had no delegated authority to act in the premises. The fact that the acts abolishing one body and creating another were passed simultaneously is without significance. The only confusion apparent in this case is that of legislative policy and the application thereof by the administrative agencies which have been created. On the other hand, an emergency has obviously been prevented by federal legislation.

The petition for rehearing is denied.
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO S.A., et al. v. UNIVERSITIES SUPERANNUATION.

No. 17-664 (R46-01 / OT 2019)

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed on October 15, 2019, pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.