alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2012171EN.01000101.xml

| 30.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 171/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 171/1

---

COUNCIL REGULATION (EU, EURATOM) No 577/2012

of 26 June 2012

adjusting the correction coefficients applicable to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, as laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular Article 64 and Article 65(2) and 65(3) of the Staff Regulations and Annexes VII, XI and XIII thereto, and the first paragraph of Article 20 and Articles 64 and 92 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

There was a substantial increase in the cost of living in Estonia in the period from June to December 2011; the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration of officials and other servants of the Union should therefore be adjusted,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

With effect from 1 January 2012, the correction coefficients applicable, under Article 64 of the Staff Regulations, to the remuneration of officials and other servants employed in the country listed below shall be as follows:

Estonia 77,8.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 26 June 2012.

For the Council

The President

N. WAMMEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

1

---
IN RE G.G.A.R.

No. COA05-1084.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from New Hanover (04J449)

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11584 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN MARQUEZ, JR., also know as Juan Baller Marquez, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-98-A

- - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Marquez, Jr., appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute approximately five kilograms of cocaine, arguing that the district court erred in increasing his base offense level two levels for possession of a dangerous weapon pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities convinces us that no reversible error was committed. The district court adequatelyNo. 96-11584 -2- resolved the factual issue concerning Marquez’s knowledge of the handgun by overruling his objection and adopting the facts contained in the presentence report. See United States v. Garcia , 86 F.3d 394, 401 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 752 (1997). Because it is not clearly improbable that the weapon found in the vehicle was connected with the offense, the district court did not err in applying the two-level enhancement for weapons possession. See United States v. Flucas , 99 F.3d 177, 179 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 1097 (1997).
AFFIRMED.
10-Q Exhibit 32.2: Certifications 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 iShares COMEX Gold Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Francis Ryan, Chief Financial Officer of Barclays Global Investors, N.A., the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, 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 Trust.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2006           
|                             
|/s/    FRANCIS RYAN          
|Francis Ryan *               
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal financial officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Ryan is signing in his capacity as an officer of Barclays Global Investors, N.A., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

In connection with theAnnual Report of BIO-key International, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Michael W. DePasquale, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| BIO-KEY  INTERNATIONAL, INC. |                                 |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                              |                                 |   |   |
| By:                               | /s/  MICHAEL W. DEPASQUALE |   |   |
|                              | Michael W. DePasquale                |   |   |
|                              | Chief Executive Officer              |   |   |
|                              |                                 |   |   |
| Date: March 29,  2007             |                                 |   |

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Damon Jamar OWENS.

No. 39P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

David B. Freedman, Winston-Salem, Jones P. Byrd, Jr., Asheville, for Damon Owens.

James P. Longest, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of January 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd day of March 2006."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2560

GEORGE J. FOXX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD DANZIG, Secretary, United States Navy, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-99-558-A) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 3, 2000Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George J. Foxx, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, Arthur Erwin Peabody, Jr., Gary K. Springstead, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s orders are marked as “filed” on September 28 and November 5, 1999, the district court’s records show that the orders were entered on the docket sheet on October 1 and November 9, 1999, respectively. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a), we consider the date the orders were entered as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: George J. Foxx appeals the district court's orders granting summary judgment to the Defendant in this employment discrimination action and denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Foxx v. Danzig , No. CA-99-558-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 1 & Nov. 9, 1999). * 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.

AFFIRMED
IN RE Z.M.

No. COA05-709.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 2, 2006.

Certification Date May 22, 2006.

Appeal from Orange (03J1, 00J92, 00J83).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.14      CONSENT OF CIRCE MALO-LALANDE   Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2014 (the Annual Report) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  I, Circe Malo-Lalande, staff member of Anglo American Exploration (Canada) Ltd., participated in the preparation of the technical report entitled Technical Report and Recommendations, 2013 Exploration Program, Payne Bay Property, Québec, Anglo American Exploration (Canada) Ltd.  Virginia Mines Inc. completed in March 2014 (the Report), concerning mineralized material in the Payne Bay property for the Company. Portions of the Report are summarized under headings Item III  Description of the Business  3.5.4 Geological Setting; 3.5.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.5.6 Mineralization in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2014 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein).  I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.   Very truly yours,


| |                                       |  | 
| | ------------------------------------- |  | 
| | /S/
Circé Malo-Lalande                |  | 
| | Name:
Circé Malo-Lalande, M.Sc., Eng. |  | 

May 15, 2014
RODGER N. BUTLER , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3730

_____________________________/ Opinion filed March 11, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Wesley R. Douglas , Judge

. Rodger N. Butler, pro se , for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Rodger N. Butler appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post

- conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel during a trial in
2011. Upon consideration of his multiple arguments, we affirm the post

- conviction order without additional comment , except for Mr. Butler’s second claim. W e reverse2 and remand on his second claim, because the post

- conviction order and attached records do not conclusively refute it

. In his second claim for post

- conviction relief, Mr. Butler asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain statements made by the prosecutor in his opening statement, at trial, and during closing. “When a motion for post

- conviction relief under [rule 3.850] is granted or denied without an evidentiar y hearing, .

. . unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A) & (D); Smith v. St ate , 170 So. 3d 124, 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)

. In this case, we cannot determine from the record attachments whether the record conclusively refutes Appellant’s contention that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s
statemen ts. Upon remand, the trial court may either grant an evidentiary hearing , or enter summary denial a second time and attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s allegations. AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSE D IN PART

.

WOLF , OSTERHAUS , and KELSEY , J J

. , CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. GILLILAND

On this day, Sabre Holdings Corporation (the "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2005 (the "Report").

This
written statement accompanied the Report.

I,
Michael S. Gilliland, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that:



|/s/Michael S. GillilandMichael S. Gilliland
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 8, 2006 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011 (the Report) of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, JAMES C. ZELTER, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(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.



| |  |                        |  | 
| |  | ---------------------- |  | 
| |  |                       
| |  | /s/ JAMES C. ZELTER    |  | 
| |  | Name: James C. Zelter  |  | 
| |  | Date: November 3, 2011 |  | 



63
Exhibit 10.1


 


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO

SEVERANCE COMPENSATION AGREEMENT


 


This First Amendment to
Severance Compensation Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as
of the 22nd day of July 2005 (the “Effective Date”) between
Southwest Water Company., a Delaware corporation and its subsidiaries
(collectively the “Company”), and Anton C. Garnier (“Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the
Executive and the Company previously entered into a Severance Compensation
Agreement dated August 5, 1998 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the
Company and Executive wish to modify the Agreement to delete all reference to
Retirement; and


 


WHEREAS, the
Company believes it to be in the best interests of its stockholders to retain
and motivate key executive officers and ensure continuity of management and
that this Amendment will further those interests.


 


In consideration of
Executive’s continued employment as an executive officer with the Company and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the Company and Executive agree as follows:


 


1.     Effective as of the Effective Date,
Sections 1(b) and Section 2(f) are hereby deleted in their
entirety.


 


2.     Effective as of the Effective Date, the
references to “Retirement or” in Section 2(d)(i) and in the first
sentence of Section 2(e) are hereby deleted in their entirety, and
the reference to “Retirement” in Section 2(h)(i) is hereby deleted in
its entirety.


 


3.     All other terms of the Agreement not
specifically addressed in this Amendment shall continue in full force and
effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company and the Executive have executed this Amendment to be effective the
date first above written.


 


	
  EXECUTIVE

  	
  SOUTHWEST WATER COMPANY,

  
	
   

  	
  a Delaware corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Anton C. Garnier

  	
   

  	
  By 

  	
  /s/ Peter J. Moerbeek

  	
   

  
	
  Anton C. Garnier

  	
   

  	
  Peter J. Moerbeek

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  President and Chief
  Operating Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  and

  	
  /s/ Shelley A. Farnham

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Shelley A. Farnham

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Secretary
STATE v. EDWARDS.

No. COA04-1312.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 17, 2006.

Certification Date February 6, 2006.

Appeal from Guilford (03CRS23051, 04CRS96857).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. Bobby L. McCALLUM.

No. 599P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael Nifong, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of October 2005 by Defendant for "Petition for Plain Error Review Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-31(B)(1)(2)(3)(4)(C)(1)(2)(3)(D)":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of January 2006."
IN RE C.N.R.

No. COA05-1159.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from Johnston (02J89)

Case without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

Nos. 04

- 17

- 00505

- CR & 04

- 17

- 00506

- CR

Richard Anthony GALINDO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 5792 & 5793

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgments of the trial court are

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED February 13, 2019.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
STATE v. Eric Marshall HAMMETT.

No. 83A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 23, 2006.

Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Daniel R. Pollitt, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Eric Marshall Hammett.

*616The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of February 2006 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of February 2006."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hashim Matthews, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 722]

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), both rendered April 28, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and rape in the first degree (two counts) under indictment No. 724/02, and sexual abuse in the first degree under indictment No. 7737/02, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

*500Ordered that.the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was not valid because it was based on an incorrect statement of law *(cf. People v Brown,*13 AD3d 548, 549 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 797 [2005]).

The defendant’s purported acquittal in a case which was pending in Bronx County at the time of the instant plea proceeding does not necessitate a reversal of the instant judgments *(cf. People v Pichardo,*1 NY3d 126 [2003]; *People v Cruz,*225 AD2d 790, 791 [1996]; *People v Griminger,*127 AD2d 74, 83-84 [1987], *affd*71 NY2d 635 [1988]; *People v Martin,*115 AD2d 565, 568 [1985]).

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court should have permitted him to withdraw his pleas of guilty given the indication in the presentence report that he was a paranoid schizophrenic is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the claim is without merit because, other than the defendant’s conclusory assertions, there is no indication in the record that the defendant lacked the capacity to understand the plea proceedings *(see People v Hansen,*269 AD2d 467 [2000]). The defendant’s claim that he was dazed and confused at the time of the pleas is belied by the defendant’s lucid and appropriate responses during the plea allocutions *(see People v Hansen, supra).*

The sentences imposed were not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
STATE v. CLINTON.

No. COA05-508.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from Gaston (00CRS19808, 00CRS19809, 00CRS60854, 00CRS60856, 00CRS60858, 00CRS60859, 00CRS60860, 00CRS60829)

Case without published opinion. Remanded for resentencing.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 (the Report) of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, JAMES C. ZELTER, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(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.



| |  |                       |  | 
| |  | --------------------- |  | 
| |  |                      
| |  | /s/ JAMES C. ZELTER   |  | 
| |  | Name: James C. Zelter |  | 
| |  | Date: August 3, 2011  |  | 







56
In the Matter of B.A.T. appealed by Petitioner, B.A.T.

No. 104P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Mary Exum Schaefer, Raleigh, for B.A.T.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner (B.A.T.) on the 1st day of March 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2006."
STATE of North Carolina v. Doneal BREWINGTON.

No. 148P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 18, 2005.

Doneal Brewington, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 14th day of March 2005 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wayne County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of March 2005."