alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
252 
aonorabls George H. Shsc>ard, Page 2 

above as eup@mental mintsname shall revert 

to the rgenerel rovenua fund ot this State." 

This Department ruled in Opinion Fo. O-733 that 

the Legislature was unauthorized to appropriate money for 

the payment of dtflaisnoy warrants issued by the Mvernor 

In the amount of $75,000 for tha purpose of ereoting 8 

bulldin on the campus or John Tarleton College. 

In your letter you sug>ly the sdditlonal~~information that the oonstruatlon that wan placed on the aempus of 

John Tarleton College was not a new bUilding, but wau rather 

an additional unit to the Solence BuildinS of aald sohool. 

In light of this additional lnfoxmatlon you have 

rurniahea, we have again reooneldered the original proposition as to tha validity or the daflolenoy warrants and have 

reaohed the oonoluslon that In aooordenoo with our opinion 

Ro. O-733, the Legislature was unautharlzed to appropriate 

money for the payment of euoh ddlolsnoy warrant8 imaued ln 

this oasb. ft 5s the opinion of thle Department that the 

Comptroller or Pub150 Aooount8 should not ooneider those 

sum8 ao appropristsd in arriving at the amount of ourrent appropriations set up a¬ the general revermtr fund. 

Youra very truly 

ATTORRRYQRNZRALOFTRXAS 

BY 

Aselstunt 

BG~BBB 

APPROVE~JUN 21, 1940
## Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In the Matter of X.S., a Juvenile

No. 06

- 22

- 00038

- CV Appeal from the County Court at Law of

Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 5105

- J ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by

Justic e Stevens

, Chief Justice Morriss and

Justice van Cleef participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of

the court below. Therefore, w e reverse the ju venile cou rt’s order of transfer to criminal cou rt

and re mand the matt er to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We further order that the appell ee pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 2, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
| Name of Company                                       |   | Place of Incorporation |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|--------|
| Full      Art International Limited                             |   | Hong      Kong                   |   |
| Zhuhai      King Glass Engineering Co., Ltd.                    |   | PRC                              |   |
| Zhuhai      King General Glass Engineering Technology Co., Ltd. |   | PRC                              |   |
| King      General Engineering (HK) Limited                      |   | Hong      Kong                   |   |
| KGE      Building System Limited                                |   | Hong      Kong                   |   |
| KGE      Australia Pty Limited                                  |   | Australia                        |   |
| Zhuhai      Xiangzhou District Career Training School      |   | PRC                              |   |
| Faith      Mount International Limited                          |   | Hong      Kong                   |   |
| Techwell      Engineering Limited                               |   | Hong      Kong                   |   |
| Techwell      International Limited                             |   | Macau                            |   |
| Techwell      Building System (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.              |   | PRC                              |   |
| CAE      Building Systems, Inc.                                 |   | USA                              |   |
| Techwell      International S.E.A.                              |   | Singapore                        |   |
| China      Architectural Engineering (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.       |   | PRC                              |   |
| CAE      Building Systems (Singapore) Pte Ltd                   |   | Singapore                        |   |
| New      Crown Technology Limited                               |   | Hong      Kong                   |   |
| Shanghai      ConnGame Network Ltd.                             |   | PRC                              |   |

----
The HONORABLE HOWARD F. SACHS, United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-3775

___________

Manuel Moreno-Perez, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Western District of Missouri.

United States of America, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: June 19, 1996

 Filed: June 26, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Manual Moreno-Perez pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with

intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and using a

firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c). The district court sentenced him to 123 months imprisonment and 1

four years supervised release.

Moreno-Perez then filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, contending that

his conviction was obtained by a plea of guilty which was unlawfully

induced; that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he was

not advised of his right to appeal, and was "misadvised" regarding the

substantially shorter sentences received by his co-defendants; and that he

was denied his
-2-

right to appeal because he was not informed of such right. The district

court denied this motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the

Spanish-speaking Moreno-Perez argues for the first time that counsel failed

to arrange for interpreters to be present during attorney-client

interviews, and failed to ensure that Moreno-Perez understood all stages

of the proceedings.

After carefully considering the record, we conclude that these

contentions are without merit. Moreno-Perez's sworn statements at the plea

hearing -- that he was satisfied with counsel, that he understood the

consequences of his plea, and that he was pleading guilty without coercion

-- confirm that his guilty plea was not involuntary. See Bramlett v.

Lockhart, 876 F.2d 644, 647 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 941 (1989).

He has not shown a reasonable probability that but for the alleged errors

of counsel he would have insisted on going to trial. See English v. United

States, 998 F.2d 609, 613 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 573 (1993).

Indeed, when given the opportunity at sentencing to move to withdraw his

plea, Moreno-Perez stated that he preferred to proceed with sentencing

rather than face a trial. Finally, Moreno-Perez was informed at sentencing

of the need to file a notice of appeal within ten days. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 7



              STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


                                ------------------------------------------------
                                   1998         1999        2000         2000
                                ---------     --------    --------     ---------
                                   Euro         Euro        Euro         $(1)


Loss from Operations..........   (21,084)     (96,339)    (259,008)    (241,277)
Fixed charges.................    17,092       71,373      168,761      158,430
                                ---------   ----------   ----------   ----------
                                 (38,176)    (167,712)    (421,769)    (399,707)
Ratio.........................     (2.23)       (2.35)       (2.53)       (2.53)

---------------------
(1)  Solely for the convenience of the reader, euro amounts have been translated
     into U.S. dollars at the noon buying rate on December 31, 2000, of $0.9388
     per Euro 1.00.


1.   The ratio of earnings to fixed charges as calculated by dividing income
     from continuing operations before income taxes plus fixed charges by fixed
     charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense. Earnings plus fixed
     charges were insufficient to cover fixed charges by Euro 38.2 million in
     1998, Euro 167.7 million in 1999, and Euro 421,8 million for the year ended
     December 31, 2000.

2.   Since Adjusted EBITDA amounts in all periods are negative, these amounts
     are by definition not available for management's discretionary use.
----

----

|                                   |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                   |   | Holding as of |
| Particulars                            | Country | March 31, 2011 | March 31, 2010 |
| Infosys BPO                            | India | 99.98% | 99.98% |
| Infosys Australia                      | Australia | 100% | 100% |
| Infosys China                          | China | 100% | 100% |
| Infosys Consulting                     | U.S.A | 100% | 100% |
| Infosys Mexico                         | Mexico | 100% | 100% |
| Infosys BPO s. r. o (1)                | Czech Republic | 99.98% | 99.98% |
| Infosys BPO (Poland) Sp.Z.o.o (1)      | Poland | 99.98% | 99.98% |
| Infosys BPO (Thailand) Limited (1) (3) | Thailand | – | 99.98% |
| Infosys Sweden                         | Sweden | 100% | 100% |
| Infosys Brasil                         | Brazil | 100% | 100% |
| Infosys Consulting India Limited(2)    | India | 100% | 100% |
| Infosys Public Services, Inc.          | U.S.A | 100% | 100% |
| Infosys Shanghai(4)                    | China | 100% | – |
| McCamish Systems LLC(1)                | U.S.A | 99.98% | 99.98% |

|  (1) |  Infosys BPO s.r.o, Infosys BPO (Poland) Sp Z.o.o, Infosys BPO (Thailand) Limited and McCamish Systems LLC are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Infosys BPO. |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  (2) |  Infosys Consulting India Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Infosys Consulting.                                                                    |
|  (3) |  During the year ended March 31, 2011 Infosys BPO (Thailand) Limited was liquidated.                                                                     |
|  (4) |  On February 21, 2011 Infosys incorporated a wholly owned subsidiary Infosys Shanghai.                                                                   |

----

----
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 10.41

         SONGJIANG SUB-BRANCH, SHANGHAI BRANCH, EVERBRIGHT BANK OF CHINA
                      SHANGHAI KAIHONG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.
                      BANK-ENTERPRISE COOPERATION AGREEMENT

Party A: Shanghai Kaihong Electronic Co., Ltd.

Party B: Songjiang Sub-branch, Shanghai Branch, Everbright Bank of China

The following bank-enterprise cooperation agreement is signed by Party A and
Party B, on a basis of mutual trust, mutual cooperation, free will, and in the
principle of mutual benefit.

1   While Party A opens RMB account, exchange settlement account, and handles
    settlement, general business at Party B, Party B will provide excellent
    settlement tools and convenient service means. Both parties make commitment
    at the same time to giving priority to the support to the other side during
    the business development.

2   Under the condition of conforming to [General Loan Rule] of People's Bank,
    Party B makes commitment to granting Party A the ceiling of credit of $
    5,000,000 with credit period of 3 years.

3   When Party A agrees to consider taking assets as collateral if it needs to
    increase financing due to business development, and if Party B is able to
    provide terms better than or equal to third party's, then Party A agrees to
    give priority to Party B to undertake part or all loan.

4   If Party A decides to take assets as collateral to third party, then Party A
    agrees to combine the current loan amounts and new loan amounts for
    calculation, and to give Party B collateral at the same rate.

5   Party B is liable to provide such nonsettlement services as finance
    management, consulting etc., besides financing and account settlement.

6   When Party A requires, Party B will train the financial people of Party A
    for bank business.

7   When there is conflict between the above terms and national policies and
    regulations, both parties should settle it on a timely basis.

8   This agreement will come into effect on the day of signing.

9   This agreement is done in quadruplicate, and both parties hold 2
    respectively.

Shanghai Kaihong Electronics Co., Ltd.    Songjiang Sub-branch, Shanghai Branch,
                                            Everbright Bank of China

Legal Representative: Liu Zhen Guo        Legal Representative: Xu Lian Ming
Date: August 29, 2001


                                       64
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60850-60851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20915]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Public Notice

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 36 CFR 51.23, public notice is hereby given that 
the National Park Service proposes to extend the following expiring 
concession contracts for a period of up to one year, or until such time 
as a new contract is executed, whichever occurs sooner.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All of the listed concession authorizations 
will expire by their terms on or before September 30, 2005. The 
National Park Service has determined that the proposed short-term 
extensions are necessary in order to avoid interruption of visitor 
services and has taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to consider 
alternatives to avoid such interruption. These extensions will allow 
the National Park Service to complete and issue prospectuses leading to 
the competitive selection of concessioners for new long-term concession 
contracts covering these operations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Concid ID No.           Concessioner name           Park
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GATE019-01..................  Dover Gourmet         Gateway National
                               Corporation.          Recreation Area.
STLI-003-89.................  ARAMARK Sports and    Statue of Liberty
                               Entertainment         National Monument.
                               Services, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 60851]]


DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo A. Pendry, Concession Program 
Manager, National Park Service, Washington, DC 20240, Telephone 202/
513-7156.

    Dated: September 7, 2005.
Jo A. Pendry
Acting Assistant Director, Business Services.
[FR Doc. 05-20915 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-53-M
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21208]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2729]


Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

October 13, 2005.

    Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's 
Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of these documents is 
available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). 
Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by November 10, 2005. See 
Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies 
to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing 
oppositions have expired.
    Subject: In the Matter of the 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review 
Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission's Rule 
Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network 
Earth Stations and Space Stations (IB Docket No. 00-248).
    In the Matter of Amendment of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations to Reduce Alien Carrier Interference Between Fixed-
Satellite at Reduced Orbital Spacings and to Revise Application 
Procedures for Satellite Communication Services (CC Docket No. 86-496).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 3.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-21208 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 310/2023

| | ISSN 1977-1002 |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 310 |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Rocznik 661 września 2023 |

ISSN 1977-1002

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 310

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Rocznik 661 września 2023

---

| Spis treści | Strona |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informacje |
| | INFORMACJE INSTYTUCJI, ORGANÓW I JEDNOSTEK ORGANIZACYJNYCH UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ |
| | Komisja Europejska |
| 2023/C 310/01 | Kursy walutowe euro – 31 sierpnia 2023 r. | 1 |

Spis treści

Strona

IV   Informacje

INFORMACJE INSTYTUCJI, ORGANÓW I JEDNOSTEK ORGANIZACYJNYCH UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ

Komisja Europejska

2023/C 310/01

Kursy walutowe euro – 31 sierpnia 2023 r.

1

---

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

IV Informacje

INFORMACJE INSTYTUCJI, ORGANÓW I JEDNOSTEK ORGANIZACYJNYCH UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ

Komisja Europejska

| 1.9.2023 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | C 310/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2023

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

C 310/1

---

Kursy walutowe euro (1)

31 sierpnia 2023 r.

(2023/C 310/01)

1 euro =

| | Waluta | Kurs wymiany |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | Dolar amerykański | 1,0868 |
| JPY | Jen | 158,49 |
| DKK | Korona duńska | 7,4523 |
| GBP | Funt szterling | 0,85718 |
| SEK | Korona szwedzka | 11,8430 |
| CHF | Frank szwajcarski | 0,9584 |
| ISK | Korona islandzka | 142,30 |
| NOK | Korona norweska | 11,5800 |
| BGN | Lew | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Korona czeska | 24,072 |
| HUF | Forint węgierski | 380,13 |
| PLN | Złoty polski | 4,4673 |
| RON | Lej rumuński | 4,9420 |
| TRY | Lir turecki | 28,9848 |
| AUD | Dolar australijski | 1,6785 |
| CAD | Dolar kanadyjski | 1,4721 |
| HKD | Dolar Hongkongu | 8,5250 |
| NZD | Dolar nowozelandzki | 1,8259 |
| SGD | Dolar singapurski | 1,4686 |
| KRW | Won | 1 439,56 |
| ZAR | Rand | 20,4199 |
| CNY | Yuan renminbi | 7,9196 |
| IDR | Rupia indonezyjska | 16 551,96 |
| MYR | Ringgit malezyjski | 5,0428 |
| PHP | Peso filipińskie | 61,545 |
| RUB | Rubel rosyjski | |
| THB | Bat tajlandzki | 38,005 |
| BRL | Real | 5,3082 |
| MXN | Peso meksykańskie | 18,1866 |
| INR | Rupia indyjska | 89,9293 |

Waluta

Kurs wymiany

USD

Dolar amerykański

1,0868

JPY

Jen

158,49

DKK

Korona duńska

7,4523

GBP

Funt szterling

0,85718

SEK

Korona szwedzka

11,8430

CHF

Frank szwajcarski

0,9584

ISK

Korona islandzka

142,30

NOK

Korona norweska

11,5800

BGN

Lew

1,9558

CZK

Korona czeska

24,072

HUF

Forint węgierski

380,13

PLN

Złoty polski

4,4673

RON

Lej rumuński

4,9420

TRY

Lir turecki

28,9848

AUD

Dolar australijski

1,6785

CAD

Dolar kanadyjski

1,4721

HKD

Dolar Hongkongu

8,5250

NZD

Dolar nowozelandzki

1,8259

SGD

Dolar singapurski

1,4686

KRW

Won

1 439,56

ZAR

Rand

20,4199

CNY

Yuan renminbi

7,9196

IDR

Rupia indonezyjska

16 551,96

MYR

Ringgit malezyjski

5,0428

PHP

Peso filipińskie

61,545

RUB

Rubel rosyjski

THB

Bat tajlandzki

38,005

BRL

Real

5,3082

MXN

Peso meksykańskie

18,1866

INR

Rupia indyjska

89,9293

---

(1)  Źródło: referencyjny kurs wymiany walut opublikowany przez EBC.

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. (together, the Company), does hereby certify that to the
undersigneds knowledge:

1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 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
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                                  
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2006 |  | /s/ Leigh Ginter                                                 
|                      |  | Leigh Ginter  Chief Financial Officer (Chief Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement, required by Section 906, has been provided to Norcraft Holdings,
L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. and will be retained by Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7085

NATHANIEL SINGLETON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN RIVERA; ASSOCIATE WARDEN WEIR; ASSIST WITTMAN; DR. 

PHILLIPES; COMMANDER GLENN; COMMANDER BRADY; MR. AGRLINE; D. 

COUICK; OFFICER MS. VENTON; OFFICER MS. JOHNSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(1:10-cv-01909-RBH)

Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Singleton appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See Singleton v. Warden Rivera, No. 1:10-cv-01909-RBH

(D.S.C. June 12, 2012). 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