alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Council Decision of 16 June 2014 amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks,            as regards the external auditors of the Bank Ċentrali ta' Malta/Central Bank of Malta (2014/370/EU)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision

# of 16 June 2014

# amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors                        of the Bank Ċentrali ta' Malta/Central Bank of Malta                     

# (2014/370/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank                           annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular to Article                           27.1 thereof,                        

Having regard to Recommendation ECB/2014/20 of the European Central Bank of 17 April 2014 to the Council of the European Union                           on the external auditors of the Central Bank of Malta(1),                        

Whereas:

(1)The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are to be audited by independent                              external auditors recommended by the Governing Council of the ECB and approved by the Council of the European Union.

(2)The mandate of the current external auditors of the Bank Ċentrali ta' Malta/Central Bank of Malta expired after the audit                              for the financial year 2013. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2014.

(3)The Bank Ċentrali ta' Malta/Central Bank of Malta has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers as its external auditors for the financial                              years 2014 to 2018.

(4)The Governing Council of the ECB has recommended that PricewaterhouseCoopers be appointed as the external auditors of the                              Bank Ċentrali ta' Malta/Central Bank of Malta for the financial years 2014 to 2018.

(5)It is appropriate to follow the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB and to amend Council Decision 1999/70/EC(2) accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Article 1(15) of Decision 1999/70/EC is replaced by the following:

‘15.PricewaterhouseCoopers are hereby approved as the external auditors of the Bank Ċentrali ta' Malta/Central Bank of Malta for                           the financial years 2014 to 2018’.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.

# Article 3U.K.

This Decision is addressed to the European Central Bank.

Done at Luxembourg, 16 June 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

G. Karasmanis                            

1

OJ C 122, 25.4.2014, p. 1.                           

2

Council Decision 1999/70/EC of 25 January 1999 concerning the external auditors of the national central banks (OJ L 22, 29.1.1999, p. 69).
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION





I, William E. Doyle, Jr., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Citizens Bancorp of Virginia, Inc;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this  report;



4.

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



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely





---

affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  May  16, 2005



/s/ William E. Doyle, Jr.

William E. Doyle, Jr.

Chief Executive Officer
STATE v. LEGRAND.

No. COA06-153.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 19, 2006.

Certification Date January 8, 2007.

Appeal from Montgomery (02CRS2740, 02CRS51953).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries of SigmaTel, Inc.**

SigmaTel Asia, Limited, a corporation organized under the lawsof Hong Kong 

SigmaTel Singapore Holdco Pte. Ltd, a corporation organized under the laws of Singapore 

SigmaTel Singapore SMS Pte. Ltd, a corporation organized under the laws of Singapore 

SigmaTel Korea, Ltd, a corporation organized under the laws of Korea 

SigmaTel Caymans, a corporation organized under thelaws of the Cayman Islands 

SigmaTel International Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

SigmaTel UK Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom 

SigmaTel Japan Y.K., a corporationorganized under the laws of Japan 

SigmaTel (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of China 

Protocom Corporation, a Delaware corporation
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P. for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, I, P.
Chrisman Iribe, President of JMC Selkirk, Inc., as Managing General Partner of
Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:  (1)
    
    such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30,
2004, 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-Q for
the quarter ended September 30,
2004, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations
of Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P. November 12, 2004
    /s/ P. CHRISMAN IRIBEP. Chrisman IribePresident
JMC Selkirk, Inc. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to JMC Selkirk, Inc. and will be retained by JMC Selkirk, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# The Planning (General Development) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2013 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2013 No. 96

Planning

# The Planning (General Development) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2013 (revoked)F1

Made

8th April 2013

Coming into operation

30th April 2013

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Order revoked (1.4.2015) by The Planning (General Development Procedure) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R. 2015/72), art. 1(1), **Sch. 4**
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joan L. Canellos, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 330]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 15, 2004, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she failed to comply with registration requirements.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits effective July 26, 2004 through August 22, 2004 because she failed to comply with registration requirements. The record establishes that claimant was discharged from her employment as a secretary for a high school on July 22, 2004. Claimant nevertheless failed to apply for unemployment insurance benefits until August 27, 2004 because she was told by the employer’s bookkeeper that she could not file for unemployment insurance benefits during the six weeks that she was receiving severance pay. It is well settled that *“a*claimant’s reliance on an employer’s substantive interpretation of the unemployment insurance law is unreasonable since a claimant could readily clarify his [or her] status by contacting the local unemployment office” *(Matter of Walker [Hartnett],*151 AD2d 897, 898 [1989]; *see Matter of Carey [Commissioner of Labor],*258 AD2d 870, 871 [1999]; *Matter of Katz [Hudacs],*191 AD2d 865, 865-866 [1993]). Claimant admittedly made no effort to contact the Department of Labor until she filed her original claim. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision that claimant failed to present good cause to excuse her delay in properly registering for unemployment insurance benefits *(see id.).*

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7632

DANNY RAY VARNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; STATE OF

NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-98-35-1)

Submitted: April 30, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny Ray Varner, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 1999).

2

PER CURIAM:

Danny Ray Varner seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s* order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate

judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Varner v. North Carolina Att’y

Gen., No. CA-98-35-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           6,600                   1,580
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,815                  32,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,727                      30
<INVENTORY>                                     17,779                  14,730
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,085                  48,978
<PP&E>                                          45,753                  31,989
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,233                   6,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,249                  88,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,384                  54,725
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           184                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,172                  14,725
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,249                  88,108
<SALES>                                        281,198                 197,586
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               281,198                 197,586
<CGS>                                          262,713                 177,883
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  299,667                 193,029
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,704                   8,521
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,872)                 (5,222)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,426                   2,132
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,298)<F1>             (7,354)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,312)                 (3,844)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.11)                  (0.35)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.11)                  (0.35)
<FN>
<F1>Net of loss relating to minority interests.
<F2>1995 submission included due to requirement to file previously omitted
EPS item.
</FN>


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Remer Y. Brinson, III, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 ofGeorgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 28, 2006       /s/ Remer Y. Brinson, III     Remer Y. Brinson, III    Acting Principal Financial Officer
STATE v. CRUZ.

No. COA05-1637.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Cabarrus (04CRS12012, 04CRS12053).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11
                        Calculation of Earnings per Share
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                     Year ended December 31,
                                                                     -----------------------
                                                               1997             1996             1995
                                                               ----             ----             ----
<S>                                                        <C>               <C>              <C>       
Canadian GAAP
Net loss for the year                                      $(2,995,559)      $(1,314,126)     $ (615,315)
Weighted average number of common shares o/s for the
year                                                        17,979,443         9,564,501       5,759,927
Loss per share is net loss divided by weighted
average # o/s                                              $     (0.17)      $     (0.14)     $    (0.11)

US GAAP
Net loss for the year                                      $(2,996,976)      $(1,314,126)     $ (148,120)
Weighted average number of common shares o/s during
the year                                                    17,979,443         9,564,501       5,759,927
Loss per share is net loss divided by weighted
average # o/s                                              $     (0.17)      $     (0.14)     $    (0.03)
Pro-forma loss for the year                                $(5,745,103)      $(1,940,126)     $ (332,497)
Pro-forma loss per share is pro-forma loss divided
by weighted average # o/s                                  $     (.032)      $     (0.20)     $    (0.06)
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7258

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID ROBERT WALL, a/k/a Rob,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:16-cr-00022-MSD-LRL-3; 2:17-cv00488-MSD)

Submitted: March 14, 2019 Decided: March 26, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Robert Wall, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Robert Wall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wall has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED