alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[LETTERHEAD OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ACQUISITION CORPORATION]


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


              SHARES OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ACQUISITION CORPORATION
                 APPROVED FOR TRADING IN NASDAQ NATIONAL MARKET
                -----------------------------------------------

        (New York, New York-November 8, 1996)-Financial Services Acquisition
Corporation announced today that its shares had been approved by The Nasdaq
Stock Market, Inc. for listing on the Nasdaq National Market. Trading is
scheduled to commence on November 12, 1996, under the symbol "FSAT".

        The Company is a financial services holding company that on August 16,
1996 completed the acquisition of Euro Brokers Investment Corporation, a leading
inter-dealer brokerage firm specializing in money market instruments,
derivatives and fixed income securities, with principal offices in New York and
London.

        Both series of the Company's redeemable common stock purchase warrants
also were approved for listing, under the respective symbols "FSATW" (for the
warrants issued in the Company's December 1994 initial public offering) and
"FSATZ" (for the series B warrants issued in connection with the Euro Brokers
acquisition). Although both series have the same economic terms and
approximately the same number outstanding, they were issued and will trade as
separate securities.

        (Contact: Financial Services Acquisition Corporation-Gilbert D. Scharf,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Two World Trade Center, 84th
floor, New York, NY 10048-(212)748-7000)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4327

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus THOMAS ROSS STRICKLAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:04-cr-00034-F) Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: December 27, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, Acting United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: In May 2004, Thomas Ross Strickland pled guilty and was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to twelve months of imprisonment and thirty-six months of supervised release. In February 2006, Strickland's probation officer filed a petition to revoke Strickland's supervised release because Strickland had tested positive for marijuana on a number of occasions. At his revocation hearing, Strickland did not contest the allegations. The district court found that Strickland committed the charged violations and revoked his supervised release. The court sentenced Strickland to twenty-four months in prison, the statutory maximum. On appeal, Strickland contends that the district court erred when it imposed a sentence outside the range recommended by the Chapter 7 advisory policy statement because, the court stated, a longer sentence would increase the likelihood that Strickland would be given the opportunity to enter the Bureau of Prisons’ residential intensive drug treatment program. We affirm. We recently held in United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006), that we review sentences imposed upon the revocation of supervised release to determine whether the sentence is “plainly unreasonable.” In this case, Strickland's sentence was within the applicable statutory maximum, the court considered the Chapter 7 advisory guideline range of five to eleven months, and- 3 - the court stated a proper basis for its decision to sentence Strickland to twenty-four months in prison. SeeCrudup , 461 F.3d at 440. Specifically, the court stated that it believed Strickland was addicted to marijuana and needed intensive drug treatment. The court imposed a sentence t hat was calculated to increase the likelihood that Strickland would receive such treatment. Because Strickland's sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable, we find that his sentence is not plainly unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order revoking Strickland's supervised release and imposing a twenty-four month sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# CE2004078EN.01074702.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/747 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/747

---

(2004/C 78 E/0795)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2614/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject:   Planting of vineyards with the help of EU funds

Subject:

Is the Commission aware that in the Spanish winegrowing area of Toro, vineyards are being planted (with irrigation) with the help of EU funds?

Does this policy not conflict with the restriction of surplus overproduction in viticulture? (1)

1

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2003)

(17 September 2003)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (2) provides for a system of restructuring and conversion of Community vineyards to improve the adjustment of production to market demand.

2

Under that system, an instrument for funding restructuring and conversion operations was introduced in 2000 under a budget managed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section.

That budget is shared out among the various Member States by the Commission on the basis of the criteria laid down in the Council Regulation and its use is strictly governed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, as regards production potential (3).

3

Therefore the Commission is fully aware of the information to which the Honourable Member refers.

The vineyard restructuring and conversion policy is part of a wine production potential management strategy.

This is why, to prevent the qualitative restructuring of vineyards from having a quantitative impact on the volume of production, the Community rules include a number of safeguards, such as restrictions on vine yields, rules on the transfer of replanting rights between holdings, and the specific problem of vine irrigation. These provisions are applied by the Member States concerned and are verified and checked by the Commission.

---

(1)  See article in the magazine Perswijn, volume 16, issue 4 July 2003.

1

(2)  OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

2

(3)  OJ L 143, 16.6.2000.

3

---
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Marc Holliday, President of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
|               | /s/ MARC HOLLIDAY                                                             |   |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:              | Marc Holliday                                                                 |
| Title:             | President                                                                     |
|               | Of Reckson Associates  Realty Corp., the sole general partner of the Company. |
|               |                                                                          |
| November  14, 2007 |
|                    |                                                                               |        |  |

 

----
STATE v. Dorothy May WRIGHT.

No. 456P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of October 2008 by Defendant for "Writ of Mandamus for Relief:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of October 2008."
<PAGE>
              HARBOR FEDERAL BANCORP, INC.
              INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

                 ____________________

                    1998 AMENDMENT
                 ____________________


     WHEREAS, Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
maintains the Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc. Incentive
Compensation Pan (the "Plan"), and the Company's Board of
Directors has determined that the Plan should be amended
in the manner set forth herein. 

     NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 6.01 of the Plan, the
Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective March 30, 1998.

     1.   Section 6.01 of the Plan shall be amended by adding
the following sentence immediately at the end thereof:

           In the event of a Change in Control, each Employee
       who is a Participant on the date of the Change in Control
       shall be entitled to receive Benefits for the Plan Year
       in which the Change in Control closes in an amount not
       less than the product of (i) a fraction with a numerator
       equal to the number of days during which the Plan  was in
       effect during the Plan Year, and a denominator equal to
       365, and (ii) the highest Benefits paid to the
       Participant during the preceding three Plan Years.
     
     2.   Nothing contained herein shall be held to alter, vary
or affect any of the terms, provisions, or conditions of the
Plan, other than as stated above.

     WHEREFORE, on this 30th day of March, 1998, the Company
hereby executes this 1998 Amendment to the Plan.
                         
                              HARBOR FEDERAL BANCORP, INC.
Witnessed by:

/s/ Janet L. Hatfield         By /s/ Robert A. Williams
----------------------           ---------------------------
                                 Its Chairman of the Board
STATE of North Carolina v. Ernesto Rafel DelROSARIO.

No. 323P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Ernesto R. DelRosario, Pro Se.

LaToya B. Powell, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ____, 661 S.E.2d 283.

*906*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of July 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 11th day of December 2008."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18448]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 05-138]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below assigned to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.

DATES: September 16, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent N. Stone, Patent Counsel, Glenn 
Research Center at Lewis Field, Code 500-118, Cleveland, OH 44135; 
telephone (216) 433-8855; fax (216) 433-6790.

NASA Case No. LEW-17166-1: Resilient, Flexible, Pressure-Activated 
Seal.

    Dated: September 12, 2005.
Keith T. Sefton,
Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management.
[FR Doc. 05-18448 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZHIGUANG LIANG,

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-71857

Agency No. A089-803-358

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 6, 2020**

Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH and LEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,

*** District Judge.

Zhiguang Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of 

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

FILED

OCT 19 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for 

substantial evidence. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 

2016). Under this standard, we may grant Liang’s petition only if “the evidence not 

only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Id. (citation omitted). 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision to affirm the Immigration 

Judge’s adverse credibility determination, which was based on numerous

inconsistencies and implausible statements throughout Liang’s testimony. These 

testimonial deficiencies, which find support in the record, undermine Liang’s core 

claim that he was persecuted for practicing Christianity in China. See Shrestha v. 

Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046-47 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Although inconsistencies no 

longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at 

the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”); Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 

1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007) (repeated inconsistencies, “particularly when viewed 

cumulatively, deprive [a petitioner’s] claim of the requisite ‘ring of truth’”) 

(quoting Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005)).

In the absence of his discredited testimony, the record lacks sufficient 

evidence for Liang to establish that: (1) he “has suffered past persecution or has a 

well-founded fear of future persecution,” Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 

(9th Cir. 2006); (2) “it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution 

on one of the specified grounds” for withholding of removal, id. at 1190 (citation 
3 

omitted); or (3) “it is more likely than not that he [ ] would be tortured if removed to 

the proposed country of removal,” Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 

2011) (citation omitted). The BIA thus did not err in affirming the denial of asylum, 

withholding of removal, and CAT relief. 

DENIED.
# C_2005257EN.01001302.xml

| 15.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/13

---

Action brought on 29 July 2005 by IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants v Commission

(Case T-297/05)

(2005/C 257/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties:

Applicant(s): IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by H.-J. Prieß, lawyer, M. Niestedt, lawyer, and C. Pitschas, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision of 13 May 2005 (ENTR/01/Audit/RVDZ/ss D(2005) 11382) to cancel the decision to grant financial assistance to the applicant in the sum of ECU 530 000 within the framework of the ECODATA-Project of 4 August 1992 (003977/XXIII/A3 — S92/DG/ENV8/LD/kz); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision of 13 May 2005 (ENTR/01/Audit/RVDZ/ss D(2005) 11382) to cancel the decision to grant financial assistance to the applicant in the sum of ECU 530 000 within the framework of the ECODATA-Project of 4 August 1992 (003977/XXIII/A3 — S92/DG/ENV8/LD/kz);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Commission granted the applicant financial assistance in the sum of ECU 530 000 on 4 August 1992 in order to set up a database for ecological tourism in Europe. That decision was cancelled by the defendant by the contested decision of 13 May 2005.

The applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful. The applicant states in the grounds of its complaint that the conditions for cancelling a decision have not been met, since the factors relied on by the Commission in order to justify its decision are unfounded in law and moreover it is no longer possible to cancel the decision to grant financial assistance on account of the amount of time that has elapsed. The applicant further asserts that the contested decision is in breach of the principle of good administration and the principle of the duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 253 EC. Finally, the applicant complains that there has been an infringement of the prohibition on reissuing decisions which have been declared void.

---
# C_2009282EN.01003801.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 October 2009 — Vischim v Commission

(Case T-420/05) (1)

1

(Plant protection products - Active substance chlorothalonil - Inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Assessment procedure - Directive 2005/53/EC - Application for annulment - Application for a declaration of failure to act - Application for damages)

2009/C 282/70

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vischim Srl (Cesano Maderno, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and L. Parpala, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment, with regard to the inclusion of the active substance chlorothalonil, of Commission Directive 2005/53/EC of 16 September 2005 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include chlorothalonil, chlorotoluron, cypermethrin, daminozide and thiophanate-methyl as active substances (OJ 2005 L 241, p. 51), for annulment of the review report for chlorothalonil (document SANCO/4343/2000 final of 14 February 2005), for a declaration of failure to act and for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vischim Srl to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vischim Srl to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

1

---
STATE v. BRITO.

No. COA08-330.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Forsyth (04CRS38529, 03CRS57535).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error as to Trial. Remanded for resentencing on 04CRS38529.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,398                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,549                       0
<PP&E>                                          77,384                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,724                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,463                       5
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          263,514                   1,168
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         2,462                   1,274
<OTHER-SE>                                   (226,513)                 (2,437)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,463                       5
<SALES>                                         25,487                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,487                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  331,367                     214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,841                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (308,721)                   (214)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (308,721)                   (214)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (308,721)                   (214)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)                    11.1
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>