alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 322/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 322 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6413 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 322

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6413 September 2021

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2021/1347 of amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2021 | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2021/1347 of amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2021

1

| 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.
CERTIFICATIONS



I, Richard B. Vincent, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this
amended quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A, for the quarter ended March 31, 2004,
of STAT Software, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a) 
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) 
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) 
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) 
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) 
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



6.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date:  May 
2, 2005



/s/ Richard B. Vincent

Treasurer
Eugene H. WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-664

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2565

HAILESELASSIE BEYENE TESSFAY,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A79-495-764)

Submitted: August 24, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fitsum A. Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Paul J.

McNulty, United States Attorney, Jonathan H. Hambrick, Assistant

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Haileselassie Beyene Tessfay, a native and citizen of

Ethiopia, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen his removal

proceedings. 

We review a denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of

discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). A denial

of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference,

since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the

applicable regulations disfavor motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS,

899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc). 

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted and

conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying

Tessfay’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (2005).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We also

deny Tessfay’s motion to remand. 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
10f-3 REPORT

               GREENWICH STREET SERIES FUND
                  APPRECIATION PORTFOLIO

             May 1, 2000 through July 31, 2000

         Trade                                                    % of
Issuer   Date     Selling Dealer             Amount     Price    Issue(1)

Genuity  6/27/00  Morgan Stanley Dean Witter $984,500   $22.000  0.17%A
Tycom    7/26/00  Goldman Sachs              1,020,000   32.000  0.36B


(1) Represents purchases by all affiliated funds; may not exceed
25% of the principal amount of the offering.

A - Includes purchases of $2,315,000 by other Smith Barney Mutual Funds.
B - Includes purchases of $6,980,000 by other Smith Barney Mutual Funds.
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of King Capital Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sean King, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.      Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of King Capital Holdings, Inc.

 
| Dated: November 21, 2005 |
|--------------------------|

 

**KING CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.**

 
| By: | */s/ Sean King* |
|-----|-----------------|

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Office
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 19, 2014

h0916

Order 

Clerk

September 19, 2014

148861

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148861

COA: 318589

Lapeer CC: 12-011204-FH

JOHN ADAM DYER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 9, 2014 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Lapeer Circuit Court to permit 

defendant to withdraw his plea. MCR 6.310(A) provides a defendant the unqualified 

right to withdraw a plea that has not been accepted on the record. At no time prior to 

sentencing did the trial court accept defendant’s plea on the record. Further, we 

REMAND this case to the Lapeer Circuit Court for correction of the judgment of 

sentence. In particular, if defendant chooses not to withdraw his plea of guilty, it appears 

that there was a $350 overpayment to defendant’s trial counsel based on this Court’s 

review of the November 30, 2012 and March 8, 2013 trial court orders authorizing 

payment of attorney’s fees. However, if defendant withdraws his plea, imposition of 

attorney fees is not appropriate at this time. A court may not impose upon defendant the 

expenses of providing his legal assistance until defendant is found guilty, enters a plea of 

guilty, or enters a plea of nolo contendere. MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii).
Maurice BUFORD, Petitioner, v. LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 269, et al.

No. 19-7686.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
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 Lone Mountain Mines, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Murphy, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Howard Bouch, acting
in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Kevin Murphy


Chief Executive Officer


August 15, 2009








/s/ Howard Bouch


Chief Financial Officer


August 15, 2009
Kimberly COX, Petitioner, v. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 18-1536

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 34.14  LOGO Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm To the Partners CWCapital Asset Management LLC We have examined management of CWCapital Asset Management LLC (CWCAM)s assertion that CWCAM complied with the servicing criteria
applicable to it under paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for the special servicing platform (Platform) for commercial mortgage-backed securities transaction that were issued on
or after January 1, 2006 for which CWCAM acted as the special servicer included in the accompanying Managements Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018. CWCAMs
management is responsible for its assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination. Management has determined that the criteria set forth in Sections 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(B), (d)(3)(i)(C), (d)(3)(i)(D), (d)(3)(ii), (d)(3)(iii),
(d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(v), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii), (d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv) are not applicable to the activities performed by CWCAM, as a special servicer, with respect to CWCAMs Platform. The commercial
mortgage-backed securities transactions covered by this Platform are those specified in Appendix B in the accompanying Managements Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).
Those standards require that we plan and perform the examination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether managements assertion is fairly stated, in all material respects. An examination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence
about managements assertion. The nature, timing, and extent of the procedures selected depend on our judgment, including an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of managements assertion, whether due to fraud or error. We
believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on CWCAMs compliance with the specified requirements. Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliance
with servicing criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii)(B) as applicable to CWCAM: With respect to servicing criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii)(B), certain bank
reconciliations were not prepared within 30 calendar days after the bank statement cut-off date.  1




---

LOGO In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance described above, managements assertion that CWCAM
complied with the servicing criteria applicable to it under paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB included in the accompanying Managements Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria is fairly stated, in all material
respects. We do not express an opinion or any form of assurance on Managements Discussion on Material Instance of Noncompliance in Schedule B
to the Managements Assertion.  /s/ CohnReznick LLPBethesda, MarylandFebruary 28, 2019  2
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 26, 2010

d0222 

# Order

February 26, 2010

139901

WAYNE F. PORTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139901 COA: 293349 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 25, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00254-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF H.L.H. AND A.H., CHILDREN

From the 413th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-D201500336

ORDER

C.M.W. and M.K.H. each filed a first amended notice of appeal challenging the 

trial court’s July 27, 2016 “Final Order of Termination” in trial court cause number DCD201500336.1

 Kimberly Gore also filed her notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s 

July 5, 2016 order denying her original verified petition in intervention in trial court cause 

number DC-D201500336. The notices of appeal were assigned a single appellate cause 

 

1 C.M.W.’s and M.K.H.’s original notices of appeal challenged an order that was indisputably interlocutory; 

therefore, their appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In re H.L.H., No. 10-16-00111-CV, 2016 WL 

3224798, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Jun. 9, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). 
In the Interest of H.L.H. and A.H., Children Page 2

number—10-16-00254-CV. See TEX. R. APP. P. 12.2(c) (“All notices of appeal filed in the 

same case must be given the same docket number.”).

On September 13, 2016, this Court received the appellant’s briefs for C.M.W. and 

M.K.H. However, no brief has been filed for Gore. Accordingly, in a letter dated 

September 22, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified Gore that, under Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3, the Court may dismiss her appeal for want of 

prosecution unless, within twenty-one days of the date of the letter, she filed with the 

Court a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See id. at R. 38.8(a)(1), 

42.3(b).

More than twenty-one days have passed, and we have received no response from 

Gore. Accordingly, we dismiss Gore’s appeal for want of prosecution.2 See id. at R.

42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Order issued and filed November 16, 2016

Do not publish

[CV06]

 

2 C.M.W.’s and M.K.H.’s appeals remain pending.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0001068602
<NAME> CENTURION FUNDS INC.
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER> 001
   <NAME> CENTURION U.S. CONTRA FUND

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                       10,696,651
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                       5,644,676
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,950
<ASSETS-OTHER>                              12,671,411
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,381,037
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                             0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                      210,875
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                            210,875
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                    48,270,543
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                        4,956,572
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                        3,786,165
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                      115,513
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                   (23,263,651)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                   (6,952,243)
<NET-ASSETS>                                18,170,162
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                                    0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                              502,534
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                                 184,327
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                        318,207
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                   (7,018,613)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                 (10,251,558)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                     (16,951,964)
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                      980,336
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                      2,009,760
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                  1,044,016
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                            204,663
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                    (10,422,419)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                        777,642
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                 (16,245,038)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                          172,094
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                                233,744
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                        24,480,458
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                             7.58
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                   0.07
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                         (3.73)
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                              0.22
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                         0.00
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                              0.00
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                               3.67
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                   1.50


</TABLE>
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 this Quarterly Report of Modena 3 Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christopher
Penner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Christopher Penner
--------------------------
Christopher Penner
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer

September 14, 2004
# C_2018218EN.01000201.xml

| 22.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8901 — HSBC/Global Payments)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 218/03)

On 19 June 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 32018M8901. 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 32018M8901. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---