alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Europos Sąjungos C 280A/2023

| | ISSN 1977-0960 |
| --- | --- |
| Europos Sąjungos
  oficialusis leidinys | C 280A |
| | |
| Leidimas lietuvių kalba | Informacija ir pranešimai | 66 metai2023m. rugpjūčio 9d. |

ISSN 1977-0960

Europos Sąjungos

oficialusis leidinys

C 280A

Leidimas lietuvių kalba

Informacija ir pranešimai

66 metai2023m. rugpjūčio 9d.

---

| Turinys | Puslapis |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Nuomonės |
| | ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS |
| | Europos personalo atrankos tarnyba (EPSO) |
| 2023/C 280 A/01 | Pranešimas, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas pranešimas apie viešąjį konkursą. EPSO/AD/402/23 – šių sričių administratoriai (AD 6): 1. Mikroekonomika / makroekonomika 2. Finansų ekonomika 3. Pramonės ekonomika ( OL C 220 A, 2023 6 22 ) | 1 |

Turinys

Puslapis

V   Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Europos personalo atrankos tarnyba (EPSO)

2023/C 280 A/01

Pranešimas, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas pranešimas apie viešąjį konkursą. EPSO/AD/402/23 – šių sričių administratoriai (AD 6): 1. Mikroekonomika / makroekonomika 2. Finansų ekonomika 3. Pramonės ekonomika ( OL C 220 A, 2023 6 22 )

( OL C 220 A, 2023 6 22 )

1

---

| LT | |
| --- | --- |

LT

---

V Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Europos personalo atrankos tarnyba (EPSO)

| 2023 8 9 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | CA 280/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2023 8 9

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

CA 280/1

---

Pranešimas, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas pranešimas apie viešąjį konkursą. EPSO/AD/402/23 – šių sričių administratoriai (AD 6): 1. Mikroekonomika / makroekonomika 2. Finansų ekonomika 3. Pramonės ekonomika

(
  Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys C 220 A, 2023 m. birželio 22 d.
  )

(2023/C 280 A/01)

1 puslapis:

| yra: | „Paraiškų pateikimo terminas – 2023 m. liepos 25 d. 12.00 (vidurdienis) Briuselio laiku.“ |
| --- | --- |

yra:

„Paraiškų pateikimo terminas – 2023 m. liepos 25 d. 12.00 (vidurdienis) Briuselio laiku.“

| turi būti: | „Paraiškų pateikimo terminas – 2023 m. liepos 26 d. 12.00 (vidurdienis) Briuselio laiku.“. |
| --- | --- |

turi būti:

turi būti:

„Paraiškų pateikimo terminas – 2023 m. liepos 26 d. 12.00 (vidurdienis) Briuselio laiku.“.

5 puslapis:

| yra: | „Paraiškas kandidatai turi pateikti
  EPSO interneto svetainėje (2)
  iki 2023 m. liepos 25 d. 12.00 (vidurdienis) Briuselio laiku.“ |
| --- | --- |

yra:

yra:

„Paraiškas kandidatai turi pateikti
  EPSO interneto svetainėje (2)
  iki 2023 m. liepos 25 d. 12.00 (vidurdienis) Briuselio laiku.“

| turi būti: | „Paraiškas kandidatai turi pateikti
  EPSO interneto svetainėje (2) iki 2023 m. liepos 26 d. 12.00 (vidurdienis) Briuselio laiku.“. |
| --- | --- |

turi būti:

turi būti:

„Paraiškas kandidatai turi pateikti
  EPSO interneto svetainėje (2) iki 2023 m. liepos 26 d. 12.00 (vidurdienis) Briuselio laiku.“.

---

(2)  https://epso.europa.eu/lt/job-opportunities/open-for-application

2

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a special meeting of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) that was held by teleconference on September 29, 2005. The Secretary determined that advance notice was not possible, and that the meeting had to be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. 

Under authority 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, the Department of Health and Human Services established NSABB to provide advice, guidance and leadership regarding Federal oversight of dual-use research, defined as biological research with legitimate scientific purposes that could be misused to pose a biological threat to public health and/or national security.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity.                    

*Date:*                         September 29, 2005.                    

*Closed:*                         10 a.m. to 12 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review confidential information.                    

*Place:*                         6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, Maryland, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Allison Chamberlain, NSABB Program Assistant, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 496-9838.                    

Dated: October 4, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-20748  Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Robert Barker, *Appellant,*v. Jesse Minton, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed June 11, 1928.

*Mabry, Reaves & Carlton,*for Appellant;

*Watson & Saussy,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record, of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J. concur.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report of Gramercy Capital
Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Jon W. Clark, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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), as applicable, 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/ Jon W. Clark       |                        
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|Name:                  | Jon W. Clark           
|Title:                 | Chief Financial Officer
|                       |                        
|Date:   August 9, 2012
#### The State ex rel. Eliza W. Schmidt *v.*W. S. Cappeller, Additor of Hamilton County.

The refusal to allow an alternative writ of mandamus is not reviewable on error. The remedy of the relator is by application to this court, after its refusal by the district court.

Ereoe to the District Court of Hamilton County. Motion to advance the case above named on the docket for hearing.

Application was made by the relator to the district court of Hamilton county for the allowance of an alternative writ of mandamus against the auditor of said county. On hearing the application was refused. The relator filed a petition in error in this court to reverse the order disallowing the application. Motion is now made to advance the case on the docket for hearing, on the ground of the public interest involved in the questions in the case.

*W. A.*and *L. Hicks,*for the motion.

*Charles Evans, contra.*

By the Court.

The refusal to allow an alternative writ of mandamus is not reviewable on error. The remedy of the relator is by application to this court for the allowance of the writ, after its refusal by the district court.

*Motion overruled and case stricken from the docket.*
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 MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George M. Lee, Executive Vice Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, 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 operating results of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/     GEORGE M.
LEE                                         
|George M. Lee                                                 
|Executive Vice Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

March 16, 2009
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 this Amendment to the Annual  Report of Implant Sciences Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William J. McGann, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

|                       |                        
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|                       | /s/William J. McGann   
|                       | William J. McGann      
|                       | Chief Executive Officer
|Date: October 28, 2016 |                        



This certification accompanies each report of the Company on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or our staff upon request.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Matthew C. Lords, Vice President and Secretary, of Syntony Group, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Registrant;

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

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

     4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)
for the Registrant and I have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the Registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within
          those entities, particularly during the period in which this
          Quarterly Report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure
          controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
          filing date of this Quarterly Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented in this Quarterly Report my conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
          My evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
          internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's
          ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
          and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material
          weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
          other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's
          internal controls.

Dated: November 14, 2005             Signature:/s/Matthew C. Lords
                                     Matthew C. Lords
                                     Vice President and Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21123]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute Of Child Health And Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel NIH/NRS Institutional Research 
Training Grants.
    Date: November 10, 2005.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hotel Lombardy, 2019 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20006.
    Contact Person: Kishena C. Wadhwani, Ph.D., MPH, Scientific 
Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, 9000 Rockville 
Pike, MSC 7510, 6100 Building, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-7510, 
(301) 496-1485, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5c2d4d1ddc2d4dbdef5d8d4dcd99bdbdcdd9bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bdcadcd9d5cadcd3d6fdd0dcd4d193d3d4d593dad2cb">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 13, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-21123 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Cara Wilson SHARPLESS, n/k/a Cara J. Jernudd v. Michael C. SHARPLESS.

2010554.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 8, 2002.

David P. Shepherd, Fairhope, for appellant.

Stephen P. Johnson of Brackin & McGriff, P.C., Foley, for appellee.

CRAWLEY, Judge.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A), Ala. R.App. P.; *Ex parte Patronas,*693 So.2d 473 (Ala.1997); *Hughes v. Hughes,*685 So.2d 755 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); *Spry v. Ikerd,*646 So.2d 131 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); *Thompson v. Wright,*613 So.2d 1289 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); and *Haygood v. Haygood,*581 So.2d 870 (Ala.Civ.App.1991).

The appellee’s request for an attorney fee on appeal is granted in the amount of $500.

YATES, P. J., and THOMPSON and PITTMAN, JJ., concur.

MURDOCK, J., dissents.

MURDOCK, Judge,

dissenting.

Based upon my review of the evidence in this case, and based upon the manner in which the trial court explained its holding, I am not persuaded that the trial court properly applied what is commonly referred to as the “material promotion” standard recognized in *Ex parte McLendon,*455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984). I therefore respectfully dissent.
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

	The Board of Directors	Infosys Technologies Limited:

	We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-32196) on Form S-8 and in the registration statement (No. 333-138491) on Form F-3 of Infosys Technologies Limited of our reports dated April 28, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Infosys Technologies Limited and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated income statements, statements of changes in equity, and cash flow statements for each of the years in the two‐year period ended March 31, 2009, and related financial statement schedule II, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2009, which reports appear in the March 31, 2009 annual report on Form 20-F of Infosys Technologies Limited.

	Our audit report on the consolidated financial statements refers to Infosys Technologies Limited’s adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by International Accounting Standards Board during the year ended March 31, 2009.

KPMG	Bangalore, India	April 28, 2009
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Implant Sciences Corporation
Wakefield, MA

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No.'s 333-76846 333-101141 and 333-64499) and Form S-8
(No. 333-42816) of Implant Sciences Corporation of our report dated August 19,
2003, except with respect to the matter discussed in Note 17 as to which the
date is August 28, 2003, relating to the financial statements which appears in
this Form 10-KSB/A.



/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
Boston, MA

September 26, 2003
STATE of North Carolina v. Rakeith Lamar LUNSFORD, Defendant.

No. COA17-1187

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 18, 2018

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Andrew DeSimone, for the Defendant.

DILLON, Judge.

Defendant Rakeith Lamar Lunsford appeals from an order requiring him to enroll in satellite-based monitoring ("SBM") for the remainder of his natural life. Because we hold the State failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that lifetime SBM was a reasonable search based on the totality of the circumstances, we reverse the trial court's order.

I. Background

This is Defendant's second appeal to this Court. In 2006, Defendant pleaded guilty to a number of charges and was sentenced to 116 to 149 months of imprisonment.

By order entered 8 January 2016, the trial court ordered Defendant to enroll in the SBM program for the remainder of his natural life. Defendant appealed.

This Court reversed, concluding that the trial court failed to determine whether SBM was a reasonable search under the circumstances of Defendant's case. *State v. Lunsford* , --- N.C. App. ----, 791 S.E.2d 929 (2016) (unpublished). The case was remanded for a new SBM hearing, "during which the trial court [was to] determine if lifetime SBM [was] a reasonable search based on the totality of the circumstances." *Id* . at *2.

At the hearing on remand, the State presented evidence of Defendant's criminal history, his Static-99 Risk Assessment Form indicating he was in the "moderate-high" category for recidivism, and that the underlying offense was an aggravated offense. By order entered on 17 March 2017, the trial court ordered that Defendant submit to lifetime SBM, finding reasonableness based on (1) the nature of the underlying offense, (2) Defendant scoring in the moderate-high category for recidivism on the Static-99 Risk Assessment, and (3) Defendant's high rate of recidivism in general. Defendant timely appealed.

II. Analysis

Defendant contends the trial court erred in ordering him to enroll in lifetime SBM because the State failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the imposition of lifetime monitoring was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The State concedes the issue. Based on our current jurisprudence, we conclude that the State failed to meet its burden. *See**State v. Griffin* , --- N.C. App. ----, --- S.E.2d ---- (2018) (holding the State must present evidence proving the efficacy of SBM).

Defendant argues that the order should be "reversed." The State argues that the order should be "vacated." The State, though, makes no argument or request for a third "bite of the apple." We agree that the State did not meet its burden, and are not remanding this matter for a new hearing. *See id.* Rather, based on the foregoing, we reverse the order of the trial court.

REVERSED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Judges DAVIS and INMAN concur.