alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7834

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DEREK JOSEPH PARKER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:17

- cr - 00253

- RJC

- DCK

- 1 ; 3:19

- cv 00250

- RJC )

Submitted : October 19, 2021 Decided: December 13, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Derek Joseph Parker , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circui t.2 PER CURIAM: Derek Joseph Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion and denying his motion to reconsider . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap pealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner sa tisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 5 65 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Parker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

a ppeal. 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
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of OraLabs Holding Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Emile Jordan, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC SS. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my knowledge and belief:

(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.



                     /s/ Emile Jordan
                     -------------------------------------
                     Emile Jordan, Chief Financial Officer


Dated:  April 14, 2004
WATTS v. NCDENR.

No. 191A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2007.

Preston O. Odom, III, John R. Buric, Charlotte, for Watts.

*404The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th day of November 2007 by Defendant for extension of time to file brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (NCDENR) shall have up to and including the 3rd day of December 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of November 2007."
EXHIBIT 2.12


                            [UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION]

                                  BANK HAPOALIM
                               Central Management
                      Industry and Local Authorities Sector

DATE:  MARCH 31, 2004
TO:  MR. GIL ROZEN
     TEFRON LTD.


Further to your notice with respect to the proposed change of the control
structure in your company in connection with the raising of new capital which
will not be less than the amount US$15 million, when 60% of the aggregate amount
raised will be used to reduce your debt to Bank Hapoalim, we hereby inform you
that we approve the following:

A new written undertaking will be signed which shall include new financial
covenants to ensure Tefron Ltd.'s loans, pursuant to which Tefron Ltd. will be
obligated with respect to the following:

1) The tangible shareholders' equity will not be less than US$40 million and the
rate of 20% of the consolidated total assets.

2) The ratio of the aggregate bank credit to EBITDA shall not exceed 8.5.

Our agreement to the amendment of the terms of the Tefron's obligations as set
forth above will be contingent on the accumulative fulfillment of the following
conditions:

     1.   Your receipt of a similar consent from Bank Discount Ltd.

     2.   Tefron will fulfill of all its commitments towards the Bank.

     3.   There is no material adverse change in the company's business
          according to the Bank's descretion.

     4.   You will sign in our favor on all documents in the versions agreed
          upon as of the date of this letter and to our complete satisfaction.

     5.   There shall be no limitation under any law to make the amendments set
          forth above.

     6.   Without our prior written consent, there shall be no change in the
          share sale agreement and the shareholders agreement compared to the
          version sent for our review.

To remove any doubt, if all of the representations and principles presented to
us by the shareholders of Tefron do not occur (sellers' group) and whose
occurrence is, from our perspective, a condition precedent to the amendment of
the terms of the obligations, as set forth above, we will not be obligated to
amend the terms of the obligations as set forth in this letter, and all that is
set forth in this letter will be void.

The above mentioned does not derogate from our rights according to the documents
which were signed by you and/or shall be signed by you in our favor.

                                                           Respectfully,

                                                           Bank Hapoalim Ltd.
                                                           Principal management


                                                           /s/ S. Shemer
                                                           -------------
                                                           /s/ P. Daklo-Cohen
                                                           -------------
GREGORY v. W.A. BROWN & PMA Ins.

No. 447A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 24, 2008.

William D. Acton, Jr., Charlotte, for Gregory.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 664 S.E.2d 589.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of September 2008 by Defendants for Temporary Stay:

*469"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of September 2008."
**Exhibit 21**

**INTERMEC, INC.**

**SUBSIDIARIESOF THE REGISTRANT**
| **Name of Subsidiary**                              | ** ** | ** **     | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorporation** |
|-----------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------|------------|------------------------------------|
| Intermec Technologies  Corporation                  |       | WASHINGTON     |
| Intermec Technologies de  México, S.A. de C.V. |       | MEXICO         |
| Infolink Group Limited                              |       | AUSTRALIA      |
| Intermec Technologies  Australia Pty. Limited       |       | AUSTRALIA      |
| Intermec International  Inc.                        |       | WASHINGTON     |
| Intermec Technologies  Holdings B.V.                |       | NETHERLANDS    |
| Intermec International  B.V.                        |       | NETHERLANDS    |
| Intermec AB                                         |       | SWEDEN         |
| Intermec Printer AB                                 |       | SWEDEN         |
| Intermec Technologies AB                            |       | SWEDEN         |
| Intermec Technologies  A/S                          |       | DENMARK        |
| ITC Intermec  Technologies Corporation AS           |       | NORWAY         |
| Intermec Technologies  (S) Pte Ltd             |       | SINGAPORE      |
| Intermec Scanner  Technology Center S.A.S           |       | FRANCE         |
| Intermec Technologies  Manufacturing LLC            |       | WASHINGTON     |
| Intermec IP Corp.                                   |       | DELAWARE       |
| Intermec Label Products  B.V.                       |       | NETHERLANDS    |
| Intermec (South America)  Ltda.                     |       | BRAZIL         |
| Intermec Technologies  Canada Ltd.                  |       | CANADA         |
| Intermec Technologies  Benelux B.V.                 |       | NETHERLANDS    |
| Intermec Technologies  GmbH                         |       | GERMANY        |
| Intermec Technologies  S.r.l.                       |       | ITALY          |
| Intermec Technologies  U.K. Limited                 |       | UNITED KINGDOM |
| Intermec Technologies  S.A.S.                       |       | FRANCE         |
| Intermec Technologies,  S.A.                        |       | SPAIN          |
| UNOVA U.K. Limited                                  |       | UNITED KINGDOM |

 

The Registrant has additional operating subsidiarieswhich, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, do not constitute asignificant subsidiary.

All above-listed subsidiaries have been consolidatedin the Registrant’s financial statements.

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of ERP Operating Limited Partnership (“ERPOP”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce W. Duncan,Chief Executive Officer of Equity Residential, general partner of ERPOP,certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of ERPOP.

 

 
| /s/ Bruce W. Duncan     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Bruce W. Duncan         |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| of Equity Residential   |
| August 8, 2005     |

 

----
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3726 

To reauthorize the Crime-Free Rural States Grants program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 10, 2008 

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Crime-Free Rural States Grants program. 

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 ‘‘Crime-Free Rural 

5 States Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF CRIME-FREE RURAL STATES 

7 GRANTS. 

8 Section 2989 of Part GG of Title I of the Omnibus 

9 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

10 3797y–4) is amended by striking ‘‘2003, 2004 and 2005’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of Dril-Quip, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Larry E. Reimert, Co-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, 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 Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          
|--------------------------
|/S/    LARRY E. REIMERT   
|Larry E. Reimert          
|Co-Chief Executive Officer

February 26, 2009
Exhibit 3.1.2

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT  TO THE  CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION  OF  EDISON MISSION ENERGY

---

Pursuant
to Section 242 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware

---

Edison
Mission Energy, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter called the "Corporation") does hereby certify as follows:

FIRST:    Article SIXTH of the Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
set forth below:



(1)   The
business and affairs of the Corporation shall be managed by or under the direction of the board of directors of the Corporation (the "Board of Directors").

(2)   The
directors shall have concurrent power with the stockholders to make, alter, amend, change, add to or repeal the By-Laws of the Corporation.

(3)   The
number of directors of the Corporation shall be as from time to time fixed by, or in the manner provided in, the By-Laws of the Corporation. Election of
directors need not be by written ballot unless the By-Laws so provide.

(4)   The
liability of the directors of the Corporation for monetary damages shall be eliminated to the fullest extent permissible under Delaware law.

(5)   In
addition to the powers and authority hereinbefore or by statute expressly conferred upon them, the directors are herby empowered to exercise all such powers and do
all such acts and things as may be exercised or done by the Corporation, subject, nevertheless, to the provisions of the GCL, this Certificate of Incorporation, and any By-Laws adopted by
the stockholder; provided, however, that no By-Laws hereafter adopted by the stockholders shall invalidate any prior act of the
directors which would have been valid if such By-Laws had been adopted.

(6)   Shares
of the stock of this Corporation owned by its subsidiaries shall not be entitled to vote on any matter at any meeting of stockholders or any adjournment thereof.

SECOND:    The foregoing amendment was duly adopted in accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware pursuant to an action without meeting of stockholders in accordance with Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Edison Mission Energy has caused this Certificate to be duly executed in its corporate name this 8th day of August, 2007.

| |  | EDISON MISSION ENERGY
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | By:                  
| |  | Name:                
| |  | Title:               

---



QuickLinks
# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 826/2014Show full title

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 826/2014 of 30 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive            measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 826/2014                     

# of 30 July 2014

# implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening                        the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine                     

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions                           undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine(1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On17 March 2014, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.

(2)In view of the gravity of the situation in Ukraine, the Council considers that additional persons and entities should be added                              to the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Regulation                              (EU) No 269/2014.

(3)Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Regulation                     (EU) No 269/2014.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the date 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, 30 July 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

S. Gozi                            

## ANNEXU.K.LIST OF PERSONS AND ENTITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

### Individuals

### Entities

1

OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.
STATE of North Carolina v. John Christopher GREEN.

No. 385P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Duncan McCormick, Lillington, for Green.

David N. Kirkman, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th day of August 2008 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 9th day of October 2008."
# L_2013169EN.01006901.xml

| 21.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 169/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 169/69

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 14 June 2013

fixing the period for the eighth election of representatives to the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage

(2013/299/EU, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) thereof,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decision 78/639/Euratom, ECSC, EEC of 25 July 1978 fixing the period for the first election of representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (3), the Council fixed the period for this first election from 7 to 10 June 1979. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decision 78/639/Euratom, ECSC, EEC of 25 July 1978 fixing the period for the first election of representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (3), the Council fixed the period for this first election from 7 to 10 June 1979.

| (2) | It proves to be impossible to hold the eighth election during the corresponding period of 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

It proves to be impossible to hold the eighth election during the corresponding period of 2014.

| (3) | Another electoral period should therefore be determined, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Another electoral period should therefore be determined,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The period referred to in Article 10(1) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage shall be from 22 to 25 May 2014 for the eighth election.

Article 2

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

Done at Luxembourg, 14 June 2013.

For the Council

The President

R. BRUTON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 278, 8.10.1976, p. 5.

1

(2)  Opinion of 21 May 2013 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 205, 29.7.1978, p. 75.

3

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.7

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Board of Directors of
Brittany Insurance Company Ltd.:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
of PetroFina S.A. on Form F-3 (File No. 333-49315) of our report dated March 22,
1999, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of PetroFina S.A. for the year
ended December 31, 1999, relating to the balance sheet of Brittany Insurance
Company Ltd. as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and the related statements of
income and cash flows for each of the years in the two year period ended
December 31, 1998.

/s/  KPMG
---------------------------------------------------------
KPMG
Chartered Accountants
Hamilton, Bermuda

July 3, 2000

                                       E-8
# C_2023329EN.01003201.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/32

---

Action brought on 27 July 2023 — Deutsche Pfandbriefbank v SRB

(Case T-448/23)

(2023/C 329/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Pfandbriefbank AG (Garching, Germany) (represented by: F. Kruis and N. Bartmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-410/23, BAWAG PSK v SRB.

---