alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 340I/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 340I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5915 December 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 340I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5915 December 2016

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257 of 14 December 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co. Ltd, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd and Fujian Sunshine Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257 of 14 December 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co. Ltd, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd and Fujian Sunshine Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14

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.
Exhibit 32





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 April 2, 2005 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 the best of his
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
      registrant.











Dated:
      May 11, 2005By:
    /s/
      Dennis HighbyDennis
      Highby
      President
      and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/
      Ralph W. CastnerRalph
      W. Castner
      Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer




BACK TO FORM
10-Q
Robert William WAZNEY, Petitioner, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A..

No. 18-9623

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
John NAASZ, Petitioner v. TEXAS.

No. 18-9198

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-20748

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICK O. EHIOGHAE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-184-1

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

August 7, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Patrick O. Ehioghae has filed a

motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ehioghae has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Oliver Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), rendered May 25, 2016, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of aggressive begging in a public place, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), rendered May 25, 2016, affirmed.</p><p>Our review of the record indicates that defendant's guilty plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently with the aid of counsel, and after the court sufficiently advised defendant of the constitutional rights he would be giving up by pleading guilty (<i>see People v Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d 375 [2015]; <i>People v Sougou</i>, 26 NY3d 1052 [2015]). Contrary to defendant's present contention, a plea of guilty will be sustained in the absence of a full factual allocution where, as here, defendant understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea (<i>see People v Goldstein</i>, 12 NY3d 295, 300-301 [2009]).  </p><p>In any event, the only relief that defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since we do not find that dismissal would be appropriate, we affirm on this basis as well (<i>see People v Conceicao, </i>26 NY3d at 385 n 1; <a href="../2016/2016_03598.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Teron</i>, 139 AD3d 450</a> [2016]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: May 23, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
* 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 1, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20264 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GABRIEL ROLANDO RODRIGUEZ, also known as Ariel Macias, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-291-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gabriel Rolando Rodriguez seeks to appeal the sentence following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana and conspiracy to launder money. Rodriguez did not file a notice of appeal from the judgment entered June 10, 2002. Instead, almosttwo years later, Rodriguez filed a pro se motion for an out-oftime appeal, which the district court granted.No. 04-20264 -2- “[A] district court does not have the authority to create appellate jurisdiction simply by ordering an out-of-time direct criminal appeal. Compliance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is imperative.” United States v. West , 240 F.3d 456, 459 (5th Cir. 2001). West addresses the proper procedures for granting an out-of-time appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See id. at 459-61. We therefore VACATE the district court’s order granting the out-of-time appeal, and we REMAND the case. On remand, the district court should treat Rodriguez’s motion for an out-of-time appeal in accordance with West and Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003).
ORDER VACATED; CASE REMANDED.
Antonio BOGAN, Petitioner, v. Jeffrey GERMAN, et al.

No. 19-6319

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Jeffrey ANTONIO, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6896

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
# Official Journal C 181/23 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 181 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4823 July 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 181

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4823 July 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 181/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 181/2 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (1) | 2 |
| 2005/C 181/3 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3762 — Apax/Travelex) (1) | 10 |
| 2005/C 181/4 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3764 — Belgacom/Swisscom/JV) (1) | 11 |
| 2005/C 181/5 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3783 — TPG/British Vita) (1) | 12 |
| | European Data Protection Supervisor |
| 2005/C 181/6 | Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short stay-visas (COM(2004)835 final) | 13 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 181/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 181/2

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (1)

2

2005/C 181/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3762 — Apax/Travelex) (1)

10

2005/C 181/4

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3764 — Belgacom/Swisscom/JV) (1)

11

2005/C 181/5

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3783 — TPG/British Vita) (1)

12

European Data Protection Supervisor

2005/C 181/6

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short stay-visas (COM(2004)835 final)

13

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 36910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13214]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board; 
Meeting

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the date, time and 
agenda for a meeting of the National Small Business Development Center 
Advisory Board. The meeting will be open to the public; however, 
advance notice of attendance is required.

DATES: Tuesday, July 26, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. EDT

ADDRESSES: Meeting will be held via Microsoft Teams.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Karton, Office of Small 
Business Development Centers, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 
Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9eccfffdf6fbf2b0f0fbe9f3fff0b3f5ffeceaf1f0deedfcffb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d280b3b1bab7befcbcb7a5bfb3bcffb9b3a0a6bdbc92a1b0b3fcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a>; 
202-619-1816.
    If anyone wishes to be a listening participant or would like to 
request accommodations, please contact Rachel Karton at the information 
above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section l0(a) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), the SBA announces the 
meetings of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides 
advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator 
for Small Business Development Centers.

Purpose

    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the following issues 
pertaining to the SBDC Program:

<bullet> Administration Priorities
<bullet> Strategy for Increasing Board Awareness and Understanding of 
the SBDC Program
<bullet> ASBDC Conference--Townhall Planning

Andrienne Johnson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-13214 Filed 6-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Andrew Lee, Vice President of Synchrony Card Funding LLC,certify that:

 

1.       I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report onForm 10-K of Synchrony Card Issuance Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.       Based on my knowledge,the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.       Based on my knowledge,all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.       Based on my knowledgeand the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects;and

 

5.       All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessmentof compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this reporton Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably reliedon information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware, Citibank, N.A. and CiticorpTrust Delaware, National Association.

 

 

 

 

March 30, 2020

 

By:  /s/ Andrew Lee

Name:  Andrew Lee

Title:    Vice President, and senior officer in charge of securitization
IN RE Percy Allen STUCKS, Petitioner

No. 18-9479

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of prohibition denied.
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund V L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the Fund's general partner, Boston Capital Associates V L.L.C., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 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 results of operations of the Fund.



|                 |  |                            
|---------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:            |  |                            
|January 23, 2007 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                 |  |                            
|                 |  | Marc N. Teal               
|                 |  | Principal Financial Officer
|                 |  |                            
|                 |  |                            



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00356-CV

KENYSA GOFF, Appellant

V.

MORGAN ROGERS AND STACY LYNN 

PEARL, Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 17th District Court

of Tarrant County (017-327787-21)

March 28, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that appellant Kenysa Goff shall bear the costs of this 

appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Brian Walker

 Justice Brian Walker
Tremaine Bernard JOHNSON, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6654

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Henry E. GOSSAGE, Petitioner v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD;

No. 19-143

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1492

In Re: RANDY COOPER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:09-cv-00168)

Submitted: October 21, 2009 Decided: November 2, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Cooper, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Randy Cooper petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing state correctional officials to protect him from assaults and harassment and obey the law We conclude that Cooper is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist.

Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials. Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). The relief sought by Cooper is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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
Davion L. JEFFERSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9325

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the *862Tenth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for the court to consider the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391 (2018).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 March 22, 2017

d0315

Order 

Clerk

March 22, 2017

153979

MARLETTE AUTO WASH, LLC,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

-Appellant,

v SC: 153979

COA: 326486

Sanilac CC: 14-035490-CH

VAN DYKE SC PROPERTIES, LLC,

Defendant/Counterplaintiff

-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

address whether open, notorious, adverse, and continuous use of property for at least 

fifteen years creates a prescriptive easement that is an easement appurtenant, without 

regard to whether the owner of the dominant estate took legal action to claim the 

easement.