alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2007132EN.01003501.xml

| 24.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 132/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 132/35

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 14 May 2007

appointing a Deputy Director of Europol

(2007/352/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention) (1), and in particular Article 29(2) thereof,

Acting as the authority vested with the power to appoint Deputy Director of Europol,

Having regard to the opinion of the Management Board,

Whereas:

| (1) | Due to the expiry of the term of office of a Deputy Director of Europol, it is necessary to appoint a Deputy Director. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Due to the expiry of the term of office of a Deputy Director of Europol, it is necessary to appoint a Deputy Director.

| (2) | The Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees (2), and in particular their Appendix 8, establish special provisions on the procedure for the selection of the Director or a Deputy Director of Europol. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees (2), and in particular their Appendix 8, establish special provisions on the procedure for the selection of the Director or a Deputy Director of Europol.

| (3) | The Management Board presented the Council with a short list of suitable applicants for appointment, together with the full file of each of those applicants, as well as the full list of the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Management Board presented the Council with a short list of suitable applicants for appointment, together with the full file of each of those applicants, as well as the full list of the applicants.

| (4) | On the basis of all relevant information provided by the Management Board, the Council wishes to appoint the applicant who, according to the Council, meets all the requirements of the vacant position of Deputy Director, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On the basis of all relevant information provided by the Management Board, the Council wishes to appoint the applicant who, according to the Council, meets all the requirements of the vacant position of Deputy Director,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Eugenio ORLANDI is hereby appointed as Deputy Director of Europol from 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2011.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 14 May 2007.

For the Council

The President

F.-W. STEINMEIER

---

(1)  
  OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 2.

1

(2)  See Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees (OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 23) as amended by Council Act of 19 December 2002 (OJ C 24, 31.1.2003, p. 1).

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the balance sheet and income statement, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial schedules.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             551
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      454
<ALLOWANCES>                                        15
<INVENTORY>                                        473
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1585
<PP&E>                                            1633
<DEPRECIATION>                                     591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1209
<BONDS>                                            572
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                        1183
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3437
<SALES>                                           1113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1113
<CGS>                                              604
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      970
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    128
<INCOME-TAX>                                        47
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 81
<DISCONTINUED>                                      (2)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        79
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
        

</TABLE>
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 32001F0888

**Council Framework Decision of 6 December 2001 amending Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA on increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro***Official Journal L 329 , 14/12/2001 P. 0003 - 0003*

Council Framework Decision

of 6 December 2001

amending Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA on increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro

(2001/888/JHA)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(e) and Article 34(2)(b) thereof,

Having regard to the initiative of the Kingdom of Sweden(1),

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament,

Whereas:

(1) The Council adopted on 29 May 2000 Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA on increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro(2).

(2) The measures in Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA should be supplemented by a provision on the recognition of previous convictions regarding offences referred to in that Framework Decision,

HAS ADOPTED THIS FRAMEWORK DECISION:

Article 1

The following Article shall be inserted after Article 9 of Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA: "Article 9a

Recognition of previous convictions

Every Member State shall recognise the principle of the recognition of previous convictions under the conditions prevailing under its domestic law and, under those same conditions, shall recognise for the purpose of establishing habitual criminality final sentences handed down in another Member State for the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 5 of this Framework Decision, or the offences referred to in Article 3 of the Convention, irrespective of the currency counterfeited."

Article 2

Implementation

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with this Framework Decision by 31 December 2002.

2. By 31 December 2002, the Member States shall transmit to the General Secretariat of the Council, the Commission and the European Central Bank the text of the provisions transposing into their national law the obligations imposed on them under this Framework Decision.

Article 3

Entry into force

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

Done at Brussels, 6 December 2001.

For the Council

The President

M. Verwilghen

(1) OJ C 225, 10.8.2001, p. 9.

(2) OJ L 140, 14.6.2000, p. 1.
#### Claude Bernard ALLEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.

No. 87-1247.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Jan. 25, 1991.

James Klein, Public Defender Service, for appellant.

John R. Fisher, Asst. U.S. Atty., for ap-pellee.

Before ROGERS *, Chief Judge; NEWMAN, FERREN *, BELSON, TERRY, STEADMAN, SCHWELB *, FARRELL **, and WAGNER, Associate Judges.

**

 Associate Judge Farrell has recused himself from this case.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellee’s petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and the opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED by the merits division * that the petition for rehearing is denied; and it appearing that the majority of the judges of this court has voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s petition for rehearing en banc is granted and that the opinion and judgment of August 16, 1990, are hereby vacated. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is scheduled for argument before the court sitting en bane on March 15, 1991. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall provide, on or before February 4, 1991, ten copies of the briefs heretofore filed with the Clerk. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that counsel be prepared to address at the en banc hearing whether the prosecutor’s cross examination of the defendant and the prosecutor’s closing arguments improperly invited the jury to make missing witness and missing evidence inferences; counsel may, of course, address the other issues in the appeal as well.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.W, Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, Washington, DC,

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0085

Issued: June 14, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JAMES D. MCGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On October 27, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 14, 2021 merit

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate

Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 22-0085.

By letter dated March 29, 2022 and received April 27, 2022, appellant requested that the 

appeal be withdrawn.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly,
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the withdrawal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as Docket No. 22-0085 is dismissed.

Issued: June 14, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

White Plains, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0153

Issued: November 29, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On November 8, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a November 23, 2020 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 22-0153.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the November 23, 2020 decision was May 22, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until November 8, 2021, more than 180 days after the

November 23, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0153 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0153 is dismissed.

Issued: November 29, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5395 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5395

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 151 North Maitland Avenue in Maitland, Florida, as the ``Paula Hawkins 
                         Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PAULA HAWKINS POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 151 North Maitland Avenue in Maitland, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Paula Hawkins Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Paula 
Hawkins Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN LEWIS MURRARY

No. 7228SC738

(Filed 22 November 1972)

1. Robbery § 4— armed robbery — sufficiency of evidence

State’s evidence, including the identification of defendant by two eyewitnesses, was sufficient to be submitted to the jury in an armed robbery prosecution.

2. Criminal Law § 127— motion in arrest of judgment — denial

Defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment in an armed robbery *639case was properly denied where the indictment sufficiently charges the offense of armed robbery and no defect appears on the face of the record.

3. Indictment and Warrant § 10— name of the accused — doctrine of idem sonans

Doctrine of *idem, sonans*is applicable where the indictment, judgment and commitment refer to defendant as “John Louis Murray” and the caption of the case in the record on appeal names defendant as “John Lewis Murrary.”

Appeal by defendant from *Anglin, Judge,*May 1972 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Buncombe County.

Defendant was tried on his plea of not guilty to an indictment charging him with armed robbery. The State presented the testimony of two eyewitnesses who positively identified defendant as the person who committed the robbery charged in the bill of indictment. Defendant testified that at the time the robbery was alleged to have been committed he was on a plane traveling to New York and presented witnesses to corroborate his alibi. The jury found defendant guilty of armed robbery, and from judgment imposing prison sentence, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Howard P. Satisky for the State.*

*Robert L. Harrell for defendant appellant.*

PARKER, Judge.

[1] Defendant’s first assignment of error is directed to denial of his motion for nonsuit. There was ample evidence to require submission of the case to the jury and there is no merit in defendant’s first assignment of error.

[2] Defendant’s second assignment of error is directed to denial of his motion in arrest of judgment. “A motion in arrest of judgment is one made after verdict and to prevent entry of judgment, and is based upon the insufficiency of the indictment or some other fatal defect appearing on the face of the record.” *State v. McCollum,*216 N.C. 737, 6 S.E. 2d 503. The indictment in the present case is sufficient to charge the offense of armed robbery, and no defect appears on the face of the record before us. Accordingly, defendant’s second assignment of error is also without merit.

*640
      [3] We note that the indictment as well as the judgment and commitment refer to the defendant as “John Louis Murray,” while the caption of the case in the record on appeal names defendant as “John Lewis Murrary.” While defendant has made no point concerning this, in view of his motion in arrest of judgment we deem it proper to advert to this fact, and we hold that the doctrine of *idem sonans*is applicable. *State v. Culbertson,*6 N.C. App. 327, 170 S.E. 2d 125.

We have carefully reviewed the entire record and find

No error.

Judges Campbell and Moréis concur.
EXHIBIT 32.a

                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                           18 U.S.C. 1350,

                        AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

             SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Regent Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, David A. Nelson, in my capacity as Chief Executive
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date: March 31, 2008              /S/ DAVID A. NELSON
                                      -------------------
                                      David A. Nelson, Chief Executive
                                      Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit 21

IRIS International, Inc.

List of Subsidiaries



|                                       |  |               |  |                                        
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Subsidiary                             |  | Jurisdiction  |  | % Owned                                
|StatSpin, Inc.                         |  | Massachusetts |  | 100%                                   
|                                       |  |              
|Iris Global Network, Inc.              |  | Delaware      |  | 100%                                   
|                                       |  |              
|Poly U/A Systems, Inc.                 |  | Delaware      |  | 100%                                   
|                                       |  |              
|Advanced Digital Imaging Research, LLC |  | Texas         |  | 100% owned by StatSpin, Inc.           
|                                       |  |              
|Iris Diagnostics France S. A.          |  | France        |  | 100% owned by Iris Global Network, Inc.
|                                       |  |              
|Iris Deutschland GmbH                  |  | Germany       |  | 100% owned by Iris Global Network, Inc.
|                                       |  |              
|IRIS Molecular Diagnostics, Inc.       |  | Delaware      |  | 100%
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 Annual Report of BSD Medical Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis
Bradley, Controller (Principal Financial 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 result of
              operations of the Company.


/s/ Dennis Bradley
-------------------
Dennis Bradley
Controller (Principal
Financial Officer)
November 29, 2004
#### David M. PRIESTLY, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-70191.

Tax Ct. No. 13537-99L.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 11, 2005.

David M. Priestly, Jr., Diamond Bar, CA, pro se.

Charles S. Casazza, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, John A. Dudeck, Jr., Esq., Sara Ann Ketehum, Eileen J. O’Connor, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

David M. Priestly, Jr., appeals pro se the Tax Court’s decision finding him hable for tax deficiencies for 1988 and allowing the Commissioner to proceed with collection actions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review for clear error the determination that a taxpayer failed to produce sufficient evidence to support a deduction. *Norgaard v. Commissioner,*939 F.2d 874, 877 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm.

The Tax Court did not err in disallowing Priestly’s deductions for expenses allegedly connected to two business enterprises, because he did not present evidence to substantiate his claim that the expenses had been incurred in the ordinary and necessary course of business. *See Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States,*329 F.3d 751, 756 (9th Cir.2003) (reviewing requirements for establishing deductions for business expenses); *Boyd Gaming Corp. v. Commissioner,*177 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that taxpayer must produce sufficient evidence to show entitlement to a claimed deduction).

We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. *See Bolker v. Commissioner,*760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985). To the extent Priestly has not waived his remaining contentions by failing *202to argue them in his opening brief, *see Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1992), those contentions are unpersuasive.

We depy Priestly’s request for a further extension of time to file his reply brief.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.