alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54060-54061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18148]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[CGD07-05-115]


Announcement of Public Hearing Regarding the Shakett Creek 
Pedestrian Bridge, Nokomis, FL Formerly Known as the Shakett Creek 
Railroad Bridge

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard will hold a public hearing at the Venice 
High School, 1 Indian Avenue, Venice, Florida 34285 to provide the 
Shakett Creek Pedestrian Bridge owner, waterway users and other 
interested persons the opportunity to offer evidence and be heard as to 
whether any alterations of the Shakett Creek Pedestrian Bridge in 
Nokomis, Florida are necessary to provide reasonably free, safe and 
unobstructed passage for waterborne traffic.

DATES: The public hearing will be held at 7 p.m., October 12, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at the Venice High School, 1 Indian 
Avenue, Venice, Florida 34285. Written comments may be submitted to 
Commander (obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 
432,

[[Page 54061]]

Miami, Florida 33131-3050. Commander (obr) maintains the public docket 
and comments and material received from the public will become part of 
docket [CGD07-05-115] and will be available for inspection or copying 
at the above address between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Seventh Coast Guard 
District, Bridge Branch, telephone number 305-415-6743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard has received numerous 
comments from the public stating the Shakett Creek Pedestrian Bridge is 
unreasonably obstructive to navigation. The Coast Guard is conducting a 
detailed investigation in light of these comments. A public hearing is 
a required part of the detailed investigation process. All interested 
parties will have an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence as 
to whether any alteration of this bridge is needed and, if so, what 
alterations are needed, giving due consideration to the necessities of 
free and unobstructed water navigation.
    Written statements and exhibits may be submitted in place of or in 
addition to oral statements and will be made part of the hearing 
record. Such written statements and exhibits may be delivered at the 
hearing or mailed to Chief, Bridge Operations Section, Seventh District 
Bridge Branch 909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131-3050.

    Dated: August 30, 2005.
W.E. Justice,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, 
Acting.
[FR Doc. 05-18148 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
----

(2004/C 65 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2752/03

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) and Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject:   EU-Turkey Association Agreement: increase in fees for residence permits

It is clear from the above table that, during the course of the past year, the Dutch fees for granting, extending and amending a residence permit for non-EU nationals have been substantially increased, in some cases doubled. This increase affects, among others, migrants with Turkish nationality. The increase in the fees has made it harder for Turkish citizens wishing to work in the Netherlands as employees, self-employed persons or service providers. Article 41(1) of the additional protocol to the EEC/Turkey Association Agreement, and Article 13 of Decision 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council, prohibit the introduction of ‘new restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services’, and of ‘new restrictions on the conditions of access to employment applicable to workers and members of their families legally resident and employed in their respective territories.’

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2003)

The Commission is aware of the increases in fees charged by the Netherlands concerning residence permits referred to by the Honourable Member. In order to ascertain whether they may constitute a new restriction within the meaning of the Community-Turkey Association Agreement, the Commission is in the course of writing to the Netherlands to seek further details.

The Commission has not received representations from Turkey on this issue.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Donald Durrant FARROW.

No. COA14-1189.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 16, 2015.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kimberly N. Callahan, for the State.

Bryan Gates for defendant-appellant.

BRYANT, Judge.

Where a review of the record pursuant to *Anders*reveals that defendant's appeal contains no issues of arguable merit, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On 11 September 1992, defendant Donald Durrant Farrow pled guilty to two counts of first-degree rape, 92 CRS 5132-33, and two counts of first-degree sexual offense, 92 CRS 5134-35. The trial court sentenced defendant to life in prison. In 2013, defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief and a motion for DNA testing. After a hearing on 4 June 2014, Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, entered an order denying the motions on 9 June 2014.1 Defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for DNA testing.

_________________________

Counsel appointed to represent defendant on appeal has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *State v. Kinch,*314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

AFFIRMED.

Judges DIETZ and TYSON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

**Opinion**

Appeal by defendant from order entered 9 June 2014 by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 June 2015.

1

We note that the trial court's order presents defendant's original judgments as 92 CRS 5131-55. As this appears to be merely a typographical error and does not affect our review of the instant case, we will proceed to address defendant's appeal.
----

(2004/C 33 E/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2861/02

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject:   Angola — transparency of public accounts

According to the media, the World Bank Vice-President for the Africa Region, Calisto Madavo, declared in Luanda on 12 September last that the World Bank suspected that USD 1 000 million had disappeared from the Angolan State budget. At the same time he advocated the transparent management of accounts as being essential to reduce the high levels of poverty.

He also said it was significant that it was the Head of State Eduardo dos Santos who had referred to the issue of the transparency of Angola's public accounts during an interview he gave him. According to Mr Madavo it was up to politicians and civil society to take steps to throw light on the real state of the public accounts.

With regard to World Bank support for the process of structural reforms in Angola, he said that aid would be provided in stages and that it was essential that the appropriations be used for the projects for which they were intended.

In the resolution adopted on 4 July last (P5_TA(2002)0375) the European Parliament ‘calls on the Angolan Government and its industrial and trade partners to set up transparent, responsible mechanisms for managing Angola's natural resources, in particular oil production and diamonds, so that the revenue therefrom is used to combat poverty and to finance global, sustainable, fair and lasting development’.

This concern has, moreover, been expressed in various European Parliament resolutions, not only on Angola, but on other similar situations or as regards the European Union's cooperation policies in general.

Can the Commission say whether it has followed developments in this important issue of the transparency of public accounts in Angola and their accuracy? What is its current assessment of the present situation and the prospects for the immediate future, both in the sphere of oil and diamond revenue and the public accounts in general?

----
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,971

EX PARTE RANDY JAMES ANGLE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 199-81715-01 IN THE 199 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM COLLIN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of three counts of

sexual assault of a child and three counts of indecency with a child and sentenced to six terms of

twenty years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his convictions.

Applicant contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he did not

advise Applicant that the limitations period in this cause had expired. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

12.01. We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Trial counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court has entered

findings of fact and conclusions of law that counsel did not advise Applicant that limitations could

have barred the prosecution of this cause. The trial court recommended that we grant relief. After

conducting an independent review of the record, we agree that Applicant is entitled to relief.

Accordingly, relief is granted. The judgment in cause number 199-81715-01 from the 199 Judicial th

District Court of Collin Countyis vacated, and Applicant is remanded to the Sheriff of Collin County

to answer the charges against him.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: August 20, 2008

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 11

|COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS                  
|---------------------------------------------------
|(Dollars in thousands)(Adjusted for stock dividend)
|                                                   
|                                                   
|                                                   
|                                                   
|                                                   
|Basic EPS                                          
|Income available to common shareholders            
|                                                   
|Effect of dilutive securities                      
|Options                                            
|                                                   
|Diluted EPS                                        
|Income available to common shareholders            

|                                        |                           |                    |       |        |           |      
|--------------------------------------- | ------------------------- | ------------------ | ----- | ------ | --------- | -----
|                                        | For the nine months ended
|                                        | September 30, 2004        | September 30, 2003
|Basic EPS                               |                           |                    |       |        |           |      
|Income available to common shareholders | $2,201                    | 1,405,895          | $1.57 | $2,356 | 1,389,385 | $1.70
|                                        |                           |                    |       |        |           |      
|Effect of dilutive securities           |                           |                    |       |        |           |      
|Options                                 |                           | 56,611             |       |        | 55,206    |      
|                                        |                           |                    |       |        |           |      
|Diluted EPS                             |                           |                    |       |        |           |      
|Income available to common shareholders | $2,201                    | 1,462,506          | $1.51 | $2,356 | 1,444,591 | $1.63
----

(2004/C 33 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0673/03

by Marco Pannella (NI) and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject:   Serious and persistent violation of religious freedom by the Russian authorities

On 21 February this year Bronislav Czaplicki, a Polish Catholic priest working in Pushkin, a town near St Petersburg, was asked by the Russian authorities to leave the country because his residence permit had been withdrawn.

This is the latest in a series of moves on the part of the Russian authorities to expel ministers of religion. The following are examples from 2002:

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of the refusal to provide and/or withdrawal of residence permits from a number of persons seeking to practice religion in Russia. The Commission is conscious of the difficult situation in which religions other than Russian orthodoxy find themselves in Russia. Indeed, several expulsions have taken place since April 2002, following the decision by the Vatican to seek to upgrade the four temporary church structures in Russia to permanent Roman catholic dioceses. Other churches have also been the target of expulsions.

It is for this reason that the Commission — in the context of Union/Russia political dialogue — has on a number of occasions underlined that the Union/Russia partnership is based on fundamental core values, among which is full respect of human rights.

It is to be recalled that each State enjoys discretion whether to allow for the presence of foreigners within its territory or not. Therefore, in general, a revocation of a residence permit cannot be deemed to be incompatible with the major international and European Human Rights conventions that Russia has ratified. On the other hand, revocation of a residence permit for the sole reason to undermine the exercise of religion or belief might well constitute an indirect sanction contrary to the freedom of religion or belief, depending on the circumstances in each case. The Commission will continue to impress upon the Russian authorities on this issue

In parallel, the promotion of human rights in Russia will continue to be a priority in the framework of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), Russia being a focus country under this programme.

----
**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**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the undersigned officers of ValeantPharmaceuticals International hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:     1. The Registrant’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Registrant as of and for the periods presentedin the Report.       /s/ Timothy C. Tyson Timothy C. Tyson    President and Chief Executive Officer  Date: August 7, 2007       /s/ Peter J. Blott Peter J. Blott    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  Date: August 7, 2007     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toValeant Pharmaceuticals International and will be furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.     This certification accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q to which it relates, is notdeemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not deemed to be incorporated byreference into any filing of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or afterthe date of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.
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 RAIT
Financial Trust (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott F. Schaeffer, 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, that:



|(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/    Scott F. SchaefferScott F. Schaeffer Chief
Executive Officer


February 25, 2011



131
RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

  CERTIFICATION OF DONALD RECHLER, CO-CEO OF RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.,
        THE SOLE GENERAL PARTNER OF RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.,
  PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, Donald Rechler, CO-CEO of Reckson Associates Realty Corp. the sole general
partner of Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. (the "Company"), certify pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
         period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


Dated:  August 8, 2003


               RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
                   By: Reckson Associates Realty Corp., its sole general partner

                                   By /s/ Donald Rechler
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Donald Rechler, Co-Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. and will be furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# CE2004078EN.01071301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/713 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/713

---

(2004/C 78 E/0761)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1330/03

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 April 2003)

Subject:   ‘Prestige’: Community aid

Subject:

The sinking of the ‘Prestige’ off the Galician coast in 19 November 2002, caused one of the largest-ever ecological disasters, with appalling economic and social consequences for a massively fisheries-dependent, and hence fragile, Objective 1 region.

This disastrous accident, which did not affect Portugal solely and simply because of sea-currents, once again raised the issue of safety at sea and how to control transport of hydrocarbons. The issue is of fundamental concern to a country like Portugal, with an immense coastline and extremely vulnerable islands like Madeira and the Azores.

Following the wreck, the Commission presented a Communication on stepping-up safety at sea, providing for: earlier application of the measures in the ‘Erika I’ package (measures on port State control of vessels, closer monitoring of the performance of the classification societies and bringing forward the timetable for withdrawing single-hull oil tankers from service), and the ‘Erika II’ (measures on earlier establishment of the European Maritime Safety Agency and compensation for victims of oil spillages), increased international intervention and the introduction of sanctions, for pollution crime, including penal sanctions.

In paragraphs 11 and 12 of its resolution of 19 December 2002, the European Parliament called on the Commission, ‘as a matter of urgency, to consider using all the necessary financial instruments to tackle the economic, social and environmental consequences of the wreck of the “Prestige” and assist the economic sectors affected’, and the immediate adoption of measures ‘to alleviate the damage occasioned to those affected, through the use of the Solidarity Fund’.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | Four months after the ‘Prestige’ tragedy, what financial resources have been made available, and what measures have been adopted to tackle the economic, social and environmental consequences? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Four months after the ‘Prestige’ tragedy, what financial resources have been made available, and what measures have been adopted to tackle the economic, social and environmental consequences?

| 2. | Does the Commission possess any estimate of the damage caused by the sinking of the ‘Prestige’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission possess any estimate of the damage caused by the sinking of the ‘Prestige’?

| 3. | What has the Commission decided with regard to the possible use of the Solidarity Fund in respect of the ‘Prestige’ disaster? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What has the Commission decided with regard to the possible use of the Solidarity Fund in respect of the ‘Prestige’ disaster?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

(21 May 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the response given to question H-0221/03.

---
Exhibit 21

                            THERMO VISION CORPORATION

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


       At February 20, 1998, the Registrant owned the following companies:

                                                State or         Registrant's
                                              Jurisdiction           % of
   Name                                      of Incorporation      Ownership
   --------------------------------        -------------------   ------------
   Centro Vision, Inc.                          Delaware              100
   CID Technologies Inc.                        New York              100
   Hilger Crystals Limited                   United Kingdom           100
   Laser Science, Inc.                          Delaware              100
   Oriel Instruments Corporation                Delaware              100
     Oriel Foreign Sales Corporation         U.S. Virgin Islands      100