alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Službeni list C 321A/11.

| | ISSN 1977-1088 |
| --- | --- |
| Službeni list
  Europske unije | C 321A |
| | |
| Hrvatsko izdanje | Informacije i objave | Godište 61.11 rujna 2018. |

ISSN 1977-1088

Službeni list

Europske unije

C 321A

Hrvatsko izdanje

Informacije i objave

Godište 61.11 rujna 2018.

---

| Sadržaj | Stranica |
| --- | --- |
| | Ispravci |
| 2018/C 321 A/01 | Ispravak obavijesti o otvorenom natjecanju – EPSO/AST-SC/07/18 – Naoružani službenici za sigurnost i zaštitu (SC 1/SC 2) ( SL C 305 A, 30.8.2018. ) | 1 |

Sadržaj

Stranica

Ispravci

2018/C 321 A/01

Ispravak obavijesti o otvorenom natjecanju – EPSO/AST-SC/07/18 – Naoružani službenici za sigurnost i zaštitu (SC 1/SC 2) ( SL C 305 A, 30.8.2018. )

( SL C 305 A, 30.8.2018. )

1

---

| HR | |
| --- | --- |

HR

---

Ispravci

| 11.9.2018 | HR | Službeni list Europske unije | CA 321/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2018

HR

Službeni list Europske unije

CA 321/1

---

Ispravak obavijesti o otvorenom natjecanju – EPSO/AST-SC/07/18 – Naoružani službenici za sigurnost i zaštitu (SC 1/SC 2)

(
  Službeni list Europske unije C 305 A od 30. kolovoza 2018.
  )

(2018/C 321 A/01)

Na stranici 8., u Prilogu II. točki 1.:

| umjesto: | „1. | radno iskustvo od najmanje tri godine stečeno tijekom posljednjih šest godina u području oružane zaštite/intervencije u vladinim, nacionalnim i/ili međunarodnim službama za javnu sigurnost, uključujući u privatnim zaštitarskim društvima koja pružaju usluge za međunarodne javne organizacije, stalna predstavništva ili diplomatske misije. Da bi se uzelo u obzir, to iskustvo mora biti dodatno, uz iskustvo koje je uvjet za sudjelovanje u ovom natječaju”; |
| --- | --- | --- |

umjesto:

„1.

radno iskustvo od najmanje tri godine stečeno tijekom posljednjih šest godina u području oružane zaštite/intervencije u vladinim, nacionalnim i/ili međunarodnim službama za javnu sigurnost, uključujući u privatnim zaštitarskim društvima koja pružaju usluge za međunarodne javne organizacije, stalna predstavništva ili diplomatske misije. Da bi se uzelo u obzir, to iskustvo mora biti dodatno, uz iskustvo koje je uvjet za sudjelovanje u ovom natječaju”;

| treba stajati: | „1. | radno iskustvo od najmanje tri godine, a stečeno u zadnjih osam godina, u području oružane zaštite/intervencije u vladinim, nacionalnim i/ili međunarodnim službama za javnu sigurnost. Da bi se uzelo u obzir, to iskustvo mora biti dodatno, uz iskustvo koje je uvjet za sudjelovanje u ovom natječaju”. |
| --- | --- | --- |

treba stajati:

„1.

radno iskustvo od najmanje tri godine, a stečeno u zadnjih osam godina, u području oružane zaštite/intervencije u vladinim, nacionalnim i/ili međunarodnim službama za javnu sigurnost. Da bi se uzelo u obzir, to iskustvo mora biti dodatno, uz iskustvo koje je uvjet za sudjelovanje u ovom natječaju”.

---
Independent Accountants' Report



Board of Directors
Community Investors Bancorp, Inc.
119 South Sandusky Avenue
Bucyrus, Ohio  44820


We  have  reviewed  the  accompanying   consolidated   statements  of  financial
condition, earnings, comprehensive income, and cash flows of Community Investors
Bancorp,  Inc. as of September  30, 2000,  and for the  three-month  period then
ended.  The financial  statements are the  responsibility  of the  Corporation's
management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with  generally  accepted  auditing  standards,  the  objective  of which is the
expression of an opinion  regarding the financial  statements  taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance  with generally  accepted  auditing
standards,  the  consolidated  statement of  financial  condition as of June 30,
2000, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented  herein) and in our report
dated August 16, 2000, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated
financial  statements.  In  our  opinion,  the  information  set  forth  in  the
accompanying  consolidated statement of financial condition as of June 30, 2000,
is fairly  stated,  in all material  respects,  in relation to the  consolidated
statement of financial condition from which it has been derived.


/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP



Cincinnati, Ohio
November 10, 2000
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3687 

To prohibit the admission of an alien who was detained as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba unless the President determines that 

such admission is consistent with the national security of the United 

States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the admission of an alien who was detained 

as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba unless the President determines that such admission is 

consistent with the national security of the United 

States, 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 ‘‘Protection from 

5 Enemy Combatants Act’’. 


jbell on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•S 3687 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ADMISSION OF ALIENS DETAINED 

2 AT GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA. 

3 (a) COVERED ALIEN DEFINED.—In this section, the 

4 term ‘‘covered alien’’ means an alien who was detained 

5 as an enemy combatant by the United States at Guanta6 namo Bay, Cuba. 

7 (b) PROHIBITION ON ADMISSION BY A COURT.—Sub8 ject to subsection (d), a court of the United States may 

9 not order the release or parole into the United States of 

10 a covered alien. 

11 (c) PROHIBITION ON ADMISSION BY THE SECRETARY

12 OF STATE OR THE SECRETARY HOMELAND SECURITY.— 

13 (1) VISA.—Subject to subsection (d), the Sec14 retary of State may not issue any visa to a covered 

15 alien that would permit the covered alien to enter, 

16 or be admitted to, the United States. 

17 (2) IMMIGRATION STATUS.—Subject to sub18 section (d), the Secretary of Homeland Security may 

19 not admit or provide any type of immigration status 

20 to a covered alien that would permit the covered 

21 alien to enter, or be admitted to, the United States. 

22 (d) WAIVER.—The President, in the sole discretion 

23 of the President, may waive a restriction described in sub24 section (b) or (c), in whole or in part, if the President 


jbell on PRODPC61 with BILLS
3 

•S 3687 IS

1 determines that the waiver of such restriction is consistent 

2 with the national security of the United States. 

Æ 


jbell on PRODPC61 with BILLS
STATE v. Blake J. REED.

No. 141P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 23, 2007.

Daniel J. Clifton, Charlotte, for Reed.

*76Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 641 S.E.2d 320.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd day of March 2007 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of March 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          19,476
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                       900
<INVENTORY>                                     17,226
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,842
<PP&E>                                           7,755
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,458
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,408
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            90
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,495
<SALES>                                         23,740
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,740
<CGS>                                           12,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,818
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,951
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,207
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,744
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,744
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        

</TABLE>
* 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 August 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30642 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SHAWN M. COCKERHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:02-CR-60041-RFD

-------------------- Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Shawn M. Cockerham appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of ammunition and firearms. Cockerham contends that his sentence is invalid in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), because the sentencing judge applied the sentencing guidelines as if they were mandatory. We review for plain error. United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556); United States v.No. 04-30642 -2- Malveaux , 411 F.3d 558, 560 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). To prevail under a plain error analysis, Cockerham must show: “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects his substantial rights.” United
States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citation omitted), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). If these three conditions are met, this court has the discretion to correct the error, “but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” ValenzuelaQuevedo , 407 F.3d at 733 (citation and internal quotations marks omitted). To demonstrate that the plain error affected his substantial rights, Cockerham has the burden of showing that the error “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). He must demonstrate “that the sentencing judge--sentencing under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one--would have reached a significantly different result.” Mares , 402 F.3d at 521. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Cockerham’s sentence would have been any less had the court applied the sentencing guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory. See Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d at 733-34. Cockerham thus fails to establish prejudice to his substantial rights. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1082/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1082/2014 of 13 October 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for black scabbardfish in            EU and international waters of VIII, IX and X by vessels flying the flag of Spain         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1082/2014                     

# of 13 October 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for black scabbardfish in EU and international waters of VIII, IX and X by vessels flying                        the flag of Spain                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 1262/2012(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

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 Brussels, 13 October 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 1262/2012 of 20 December 2012 fixing for 2013 and 2014 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels                              for certain deep-sea fish stocks (OJ L 356, 22.12.2012, p. 22).
Exhibit 21.1

      Subsidiaries
      ------------

                                     State of                % of
      Name                         Incorporation           Ownership
      ----                         -------------           ---------  

      Synaptx Access(1)             Florida                   100%
   
      Synaptx Impulse(2)            Illinois                  100%

      Oraycom, Inc.                 Texas                     100%  

      W.b. Controls, Inc.           Illinois                  100%

      Primus Marketing 
       Associates, Inc.             Minnesota                 100%  


     1.  Formerly known as North American Telco Cable Reps, Inc. ("NATCRI")

     2.  Formerly known as Maxwell Partners, Inc.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.6(b)

                      SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGENCY AGREEMENT


          AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ("AMENDMENT") made as of April 1, 1999 by and
between TOYMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation and its subsidiaries
(collectively, the "COMPANY") and TAI NAM INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED (the
"AGENT").

          WHEREAS, the Company and the Agent entered into an Agency Agreement
dated April 1, 1997, as amended on September 22, 1997 (the "AGENCY AGREEMENT");
and

          WHEREAS, the Company and the Agent desire to further amend the Agency
Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein.

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

          1. Section (7) of the Agency Agreement is hereby amended to extend the
term thereof for an additional one (1) year from the date of this Amendment
until March 31, 2000. Thereafter, the Agency Agreement shall be automatically
extended until termination by either party, upon the receipt by the other party
hereto of written notice given three months in advance of the desired
termination.

          2. Unless otherwise amended, the Agency Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect until terminated in accordance with the terms hereof. All other
terms of the Agency Agreement are hereby restated.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be
executed as of the date and year first above written.

                                TOYMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC.


                                By:        /s/ Steven A. Lebensfeld
                                   --------------------------------
                                    Steven A. Lebensfeld, President


                                TAI NAM INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD.


                                By:            /s/ David Ki Kwanchu
                                   --------------------------------
                                       David Ki Kwan Chu, President
# Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 482/2014Show full title

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 482/2014 of 4 March 2014 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 114/2013 as regards            the 2010 average specific CO2 emissions specified for the manufacturer Great Wall Motor Company Limited         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 482/2014                     

# of 4 March 2014

# amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 114/2013 as regards the 2010 average specific CO2 emissions specified for the manufacturer Great Wall Motor Company Limited                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 setting emission                           performance standards for new light commercial vehicles as part of the Union's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles(1), and in particular Article 11(7) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)The manufacturer of light commercial vehicles, Great Wall Motor Company Limited, has informed the Commission that the average                              specific CO2 emissions in 2010 specified for that manufacturer in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 114/2013(2) are incorrect. The manufacturer has provided detailed evidence demonstrating that the average specific CO2 emissions in 2010 were significantly higher than the value indicated in that Regulation.

(2)The Commission has assessed the evidence provided by Great Wall Motor Company Limited and considers that it is appropriate                              to correct the value.

(3)Delegated Regulation (EU) No 114/2013 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

In the list in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 114/2013, the entry in the second column, with the heading ‘Average emissions,                     (g/km)’, for the make *Great Wall* is replaced by ‘225,00’.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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 Brussels, 4 March 2014.

*For the Commission*                            

*The President*                            

José Manuel Barroso                            

1

OJ L 145, 31.5.2011, p. 1.                           

2

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 114/2013 of 6 November 2012 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of the European                              Parliament and of the Council with regard to rules for the application for a derogation from the specific CO2 emissions targets for new light commercial vehicle (OJ L 38, 9.2.2013, p. 1).
STATE of North Carolina v. Martin Ray BYLER.

No. 420P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., for Byler.

Charles E. Reece, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 24th day of August 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th day of January 2008."

TIMMONS-GOODSON, J., recused.
Kerry Kim SMITH v. Lori Bzduch SMITH.

No. 526P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

C. Todd Roper, Siler City, for Kerry Kim Smith.

Susan Franklin, for Robert Bzduch.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Plaintiff on the 4th day of October 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th day of October 2006 by Plaintiff 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 6th day of March 2008."