alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 114/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 114 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6314 April 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 114

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6314 April 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/516 of 3 April 2020 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/517 of 3 April 2020 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature | 4 |
| | | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | * | Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/518 of 8 April 2020 on a common Union toolbox for the use of technology and data to combat and exit from the COVID-19 crisis, in particular concerning mobile applications and the use of anonymised mobility data | 7 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/516 of 3 April 2020 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/517 of 3 April 2020 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature

4

RECOMMENDATIONS

*

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/518 of 8 April 2020 on a common Union toolbox for the use of technology and data to combat and exit from the COVID-19 crisis, in particular concerning mobile applications and the use of anonymised mobility data

7

| 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.
CERTIFICATE
                              
      The  undersigned, Controller of SMITH BARNEY
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALS FUND INC. (the "Fund"), hereby
certifies that the Fund has received  full payment, in
accordance  with  the provisions of its Prospectus, for
8,223,277 shares of common stock,  par  value $0.001 per
share, the sales  of  which are reported in the Fund's Rule
24f-2 Notice covering the fiscal year ended February 28,
1997 and that the facts otherwise stated in such Notice are
true.


                                   Thomas M. Reynolds
                                   Controller

Dated:         April 15, 1997
# C_2018454EN.01002301.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/23

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9095 — UPL/Arysta LifeScience)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 454/08)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | United Phosphorus Corporation Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Phosphorus Ltd (‘UPL’, India), |
| --- | --- |

—

United Phosphorus Corporation Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Phosphorus Ltd (‘UPL’, India),

| — | Arysta LifeScience Inc. (‘Arysta’, USA). |
| --- | --- |

—

Arysta LifeScience Inc. (‘Arysta’, USA).

UPL acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Arysta.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | UPL is active worldwide in the manufacture of products for the protection of plantations, intermediates, specialty chemicals and other industrial chemicals, including insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, fumigants, plant growth regulators and rodenticides, |
| --- | --- |

—

UPL is active worldwide in the manufacture of products for the protection of plantations, intermediates, specialty chemicals and other industrial chemicals, including insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, fumigants, plant growth regulators and rodenticides,

| — | Arysta is a global provider of innovative crop protection solutions, including bio-solutions and seed treatments. Arysta specialises in the development, formulation, registration, marketing and distribution of differentiated crop protection chemicals for a variety of crops and applications. |
| --- | --- |

—

Arysta is a global provider of innovative crop protection solutions, including bio-solutions and seed treatments. Arysta specialises in the development, formulation, registration, marketing and distribution of differentiated crop protection chemicals for a variety of crops and applications.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9095 — UPL/Arysta LifeScience

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| --- |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51121 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAUL CONTRARAS-FLORES, also known as Raul Aceves-Flores, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-02-CR-80-1-WWJ

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Raul Contraras-Flores appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Contraras contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Contraras maintains that he pleadedNo. 02-51121 -2- guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Contraras acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 13.1



Certification by the
Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the
amendment no. 1 to the annual report of CNFinance Holdings Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for the year ended
December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (as so amended, the “Report”),
I, Bin Zhai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 25, 2020



|By:    | /s/ Bin Zhai            | 
|------ | ----------------------- | 
|Name:  | Bin Zhai                | 
|Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
Gary E. LAROCK, Jr., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6356

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

*574Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Matthew J. ROSENWASSER, Petitioner, v. FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, et al.

No. 19-166

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SuperiorEssex Inc. (the “*Company*”)for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the “*PeriodicReport*”), I, Stephen M. Carter, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best ofmy knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  August 7, 2008   | /s/  STEPHEN M. CARTER                       |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                              | Stephen  M. Carter *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1135 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act to repeal certain additional disclosure requirements, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2013 

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan (for himself and Mr. GARRETT) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to repeal certain additional disclosure requirements, 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 ‘‘Burdensome Data Col5 lection Relief Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE REQUIRE7 MENTS. 

8 Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Re9 form and Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 781 note) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 1135 IH

1 is hereby repealed and any regulations issued pursuant to 

2 such subsection shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Official Journal C 431/11 D

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 431 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6311 December 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 431

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6311 December 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2020/C 431/01 | Twenty-Second Annual Report according to Article 8(2) of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing the control of exports of military technology and equipment | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2020/C 431/01

Twenty-Second Annual Report according to Article 8(2) of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing the control of exports of military technology and equipment

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

242 

CA 12-01201 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF DAVID THOMAS AND GLENN WALLACE, 

PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, 

V ORDER

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF GRAND ISLAND 

AND DONALD R. TURNER, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

RICHARD J. LIPPES & ASSOCIATES, BUFFALO (RICHARD J. LIPPES OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS. 

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (CHARLES W. MALCOMB OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF GRAND ISLAND. 

DAMON MOREY LLP, CLARENCE (COREY A. AUERBACH OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT DONALD R. TURNER. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick

H. NeMoyer, J.), entered March 23, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to

CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court.

Entered: March 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Charles Brandon MARTIN, Petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 19-8326.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 1, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
Exhibit
32.2



CERTIFICATION
UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the filing by IMAC Holdings, Inc. (the “Registrant”) of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2018 (the “Annual Report”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Dwight
Anthony Bond, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



(i)
The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)
The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.



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





|Date:
    April 16, 2019 | By:    | /s/
    D. Anthony Bond                                   
|------------------------ | ------ | ----------------------------------------------------------
|                         | Name:  | D.
    Anthony Bond                                       
|                         | Title: | Chief
    Financial Officer 
(Principal Financial Officer)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 16, 2014

NO. 03-12-00065-CV

Juan Enriquez, Appellant

v.

Cristina Melton Crain, Individually and in her Official Capacity as former Chair of the 

Texas Board of Criminal Justice; Brad Livingston, Individually and in his Official 

Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; 

Nathaniel Quarterman, Individually and in his Official Capacity as former Director of the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice; and John Rupert, Individually and in his Official 

Capacity as former Warden of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Michael Unit, 

Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING --

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on December 21, 2011. The Court’s 

opinion and judgment dated August 7, 2013 are withdrawn. Having reviewed the record and the 

parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s order. 

Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order. Because appellant is indigent and unable to 

pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Fundamental Value Fund Inc.

                                                            (2)
               Report of Independent Accountants


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Fundamental Value Fund Inc.


In planning and performing our audit of the financial
statements of Smith Barney Fundamental Value Fund Inc.
(hereafter referred to as the Fund) for the year ended
September 30, 2002, 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
September 30, 2002.

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


November 15, 2002
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 2, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50949

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILFREDO LIZAMA-DIAZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-979-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wilfredo Lizama-Diaz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after

deportation and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment, three

years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. 

Lizama-Diaz moves for appointment of new counsel based on his

current court-appointed attorney’s decision not to file a reply

brief in this case. The motion is DENIED. 

Lizama-Diaz argues that his sentence is unreasonable and is

greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals under 18
No. 05-50949

-2-

U.S.C. § 3553(a) because the court did not consider his

rehabilitation. He does not challenge the district court’s

calculation of his guidelines sentencing range. 

A sentence, such as Lizama-Diaz’s, “within a properly

calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable.” United

States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). In the

district court’s written Statement of Reasons it noted that it

considered, in part, “the history and characteristics of the

defendant,” which would have encompassed any rehabilitation on

Lizama-Diaz’s part. Lizama-Diaz has failed to demonstrate that

his properly calculated guidelines sentence was unreasonable. 

See id.; United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).

Lizama-Diaz also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated

felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although Lizama-Diaz contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have

repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410

F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). 

Lizama-Diaz properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in
No. 05-50949

-3-

light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises

it here to preserve it for further review. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
Ron Christopher WHITLEY, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6288

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Rebekah GEE, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Petitioner v. JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L.L.C., et al.

No. 18-1460

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 17, 2020

Motion of Rebekah Gee, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, to supplement the record and to file certain documents under seal denied.