alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2007165EN.01000101.xml

| 27.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 165/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 165/1

---

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC, EURATOM) No 723/2007

of 18 June 2007

adjusting the weightings applicable to the remuneration of officials and other servants of the European Communities

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, and in particular Article 13 thereof,

Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and to the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities, as laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular Articles 63, 64, Article 65(2) of the Staff Regulations and Annexes VII and XI thereto, and having regard to the first paragraph of Article 20, Article 64 and Article 92 of the Conditions of employment of other servants,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

There was a substantial increase in the cost of living in Estonia in the period from June to December 2006. The weighting applied to the remuneration of officials and other servants should therefore be adjusted,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

With effect from 1 January 2007, the weighting applicable, under Article 64 of the Staff Regulations, to the remuneration of officials and other servants employed in the country listed below shall be as follows:

| — | Estonia 83,4. |
| --- | --- |

—

Estonia 83,4.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 18 June 2007.

For the Council

The President

F.-W. STEINMEIER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1895/2006 (OJ L 397, 30.12.2006, p. 6).

1

---
#### George S. Thompson & another *vs.*Henry S. Howe.

Oct. 12, 1874.

Evidence Stricken from Return, and Judgment *Affirmed.*— Robinson v. *Barilett,*11 Minn. 410, followed, in striking from a return evidence not embraced in a settled or agreed case or bill of exceptions. Judgment affirmed, the same, together with the referee’s conclusions of law, being supported by his findings of fact.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for the counties of Watonwan, etc., entered upon the report of a referee. The only evidence returned to this court is contained in a statement certified by the referee to be ‘ ‘ the evidence and the whole thereof, in substance, adduced upon the trial in said action before me,” — the return containing no case or bill of exceptions. A motion was made in this court, by the respondent, to strike this “ statement of evidence ’ ’ from the return.

*W. L. Ooon,*for appellant.

*J. W. Seager,*for respondents.

*By the court.*

The “ statement of evidence adduced upon the trial,” although certified by the referee, was not embraced in any settled or agreed case or bill of exceptions, and therefore forms no part of the record, and was improperly included in the return, and must be stricken therefrom. *Robinson*v. Bartlett, 11 Minn. 410.

The only question remaining to be considered is whether the referee’s findings of fact sustain his conclusions of law, and the judgment entered on his report. It is too plain to require argument that this question must be answered in the affirmative.

Judgment affirmed.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying Amendment No. 3 to the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Advantage Capital Development Corp. for the Quarter Ending
September 30, 2004, I, Jeffrey Sternberg, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Advantage Capital Development Corp. hereby certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:


     1.   Such amended quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the period ending
          September 30, 2004, 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 such Amended Quarterly Report on Form
          10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, fairly represents in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Advantage Capital Development Corp.



Dated:    May 11, 2005


ADVANTAGE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.


By:  /s/ Jeffrey Sternberg
-----------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
# L_2007271EN.01000501.xml

| 16.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 271/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 271/5

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1201/2007

of 15 October 2007

entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Coliflor de Calahorra (PGI))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and pursuant to Article 17(2) of the same Regulation, the application submitted by Spain to enter the designation ‘Coliflor de Calahorra’ in the register was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and pursuant to Article 17(2) of the same Regulation, the application submitted by Spain to enter the designation ‘Coliflor de Calahorra’ in the register was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | A statement of objection was notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. As this statement of opposition was subsequently withdrawn, this designation should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A statement of objection was notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. As this statement of opposition was subsequently withdrawn, this designation should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The designation contained in the Annex to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 October 2007.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 1).

1

(2)  
  OJ C 148, 24.6.2006, p. 21.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

| Class 1.6. | Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed |
| --- | --- |

Class 1.6.

Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

SPAIN

Coliflor de Calahorra (PGI)

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 30, 2013

d0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2013

147257

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147257

COA: 315828

Kent CC: 13-000387-FH

JOSEPH MARTIN MORALES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 14, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Lia MAYNILDA; Herry Jaya Lienardy Lie, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-2409.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 30, 2005.

Decided April 7, 2005.

Lia Maynilda, Herry Jaya Lienardy Lie, Petitioners pro se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Song E. Park, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Lia Maynilda and Herry Jaya Lienardy Lie, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of two separate orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of their requests for asylum and withholding of removal. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that the Petitioners fail to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, the Petitioners cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. *Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
Exhibit 32





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 on Form 10-Q of Ameriprise Certificate Company (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Abu M. Arif, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James R. Hill, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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


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











Date:August 1, 2022By:/s/ Abu M. ArifAbu M. ArifChief Executive Officer


Date:August 1, 2022By:/s/ James R. HillJames R. HillChief Financial Officer
#### STATE v. CODY

No. 40.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 524.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 21 January 1977.
#### BOYD REALTY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, PROSECUTOR, v. THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF LEONIA ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Submitted October 16, 1931

Decided March 2, 1932.

Before Justices Tkenchakd, Daly and Dorges.

Bor the prosecutor, *Seufert & Elmore.*

Bor the defendants; *Stanton T. Lawrence.*

*333Pee Cueiam.

Boyd Eealty Company, Incorporated, has a rule to show cause why a writ of *certiorari*should not issue to review “the resolution or certificate fixing and determining the costs of the improvement constructed under and by virtue of an ordinance entitled: ‘An ordinance to provide for the laying of sanitary sewers and storm sewers * * * on Broad avenue, in the borough of Leonia/ &c.”

It is stipulated that no attack is sought to be made upon the validity of the ordinance or concerning procedure for the adoption of the report of the commissioners of assessment. The controversy is as to the fairness of the assessment.

The ordinance was adopted October 28th, 1929, and the work was completed within a year thereafter. The report of the commissioners of assessment was confirmed on December 29th, 1930. So far as appears, the work was prosecuted without objection, and the first complaint was made after the assessment was imposed.

The record is quite large, and the matter has been fully argued. However, as above stated, the question presented is as to the fairness of the assessment against the proponent of this rule.

It has been repeatedly held in this court that where an attack is made upon an assessment for unfairness, the dissatisfied owner must use the remedy provided in the Home Buie act o£ taking an appeal to the Circuit Court, before resorting to *certiorari. Graham,*v. *Ocean City,*98 *N. J. L.*426; *Maywood Land Co.*v. *Maywood,*147 *Atl. Rep.*743.

Upon the whole case, we are of opinion that the discretion of the court in allowing a writ of *certiorari*should not be exercised in this case.

The rule to show cause is discharged, with costs.
Exhibit 32.1


           Section 1350 Certification of Principal Executive Officer


The undersigned, Chairman, President and Treasurer, of Jaco Electronics, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Quarterly Report") accompanying
this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) the
information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
the dates and for the periods presented as required by such report. The
foregoing certification is based upon, among other things, my responsibilities
as principal executive officer of the Company, my own due diligence and
representations made by certain other members of the Company's senior
management.

Date:  February 14, 2005

                                             /s/ Joel H. Girsky
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Joel H. Girsky
                                             Chairman, President and Treasurer
                                             (Principal Executive Officer)
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 488 

To decrease the matching funds requirement and authorize additional appropriations for Keweenaw National Historical Park in the State of Michigan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2009 

Mr. STUPAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To decrease the matching funds requirement and authorize 

additional appropriations for Keweenaw National Historical Park in the State of Michigan. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FUNDING FOR KEWEENAW NATIONAL HISTOR4 ICAL PARK. 

5 (a) ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.—Section 4 of Public 

6 Law 102–543 (16 U.S.C. 410yy–3) is amended by striking 

7 subsection (d). 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 488 IH

1 (b) MATCHING FUNDS.—Section 8(b) of Public Law 

2 102–543 (16 U.S.C. 410yy–7(b)) is amended by striking 

3 ‘‘$4’’ and inserting ‘‘$1’’. 

4 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

5 10 of Public Law 102–543 (16 U.S.C. 410yy–9) is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘$50,000,000’’; and 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘$3,000,000’’ and insert11 ing ‘‘$25,000,000’’; and 

12 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘$100,000’’ 

13 and all that follows through ‘‘those duties’’ and in14 serting ‘‘$250,000’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD RAY McMILLIAN

No. 7427SC111

(Filed 3 April 1974)

Criminal Law § 91 — unavailability of witnesses — motion to continue — denial proper

Trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for continuance in order that witnesses might be summoned, since the record *223showed the motion was made when the case was called for trial but it did not disclose the names of the witnesses, what defendant proposed to prove by them or where the witnesses were.

Appeal by defendant from *Martin (Robert M.), Judge,*20 August 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Cleveland County.

By indictment proper in form defendant was charged with felonious escape from Subsidiary Unit #4635 of the N. C. Department of Corrections where he was serving sentences for felonious larceny, forgery, conspiracy to commit forgery and conspiracy to commit breaking and entering. He pleaded not guilty, a jury found him guilty as charged, and the court entered judgment imposing prison sentence of twelve months to begin at expiration of specified sentences then being served. Defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General William B. Ray and Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin, for the State.*

*Joseph M. Wright for defendant appellant.*

BRITT, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the failure of the court to grant his motion for a continuance of the trial in order that witnesses for defendant might be summoned. The assignment has no merit. The record discloses that the motion for continuance was made when the case was called for trial; but the record fails to disclose the names of the witnesses, what defendant proposed to prove by them, or where the witnesses were. The motion was directed to the discretion of the trial judge, *State v. Shue,*16 N.C. App. 696, 193 S.E. 2d 481 (1972), and his ruling thereon is not reviewable except for abuse of discretion. We perceive no abuse of discretion.

Defendant’s other assignments of error relate to the failure of the court to allow his motions for dismissal interposed at the close of the State’s evidence and renewed at the close of all of the evidence. The assignments have no merit. No useful purpose would be served in reviewing the evidence here; it suffices to say the evidence was sufficient to survive the motions for dismissal and to support the verdict of guilty of felonious escape.

*224No error.

Judges Hedrick and Carson concur.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000009220-MAR-201308:10 AM
EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-131848, No. 333-123606, No. 333-112483, No. 333-83014, No. 333-95615, No. 333-17725, No. 333-05125, No. 33-69782, No. 33-44481, No. 33-33535, No. 333-52844, No. 333-69955, No. 333-07347, and No. 333-55816) of MICROS Systems, Inc. of our report dated September 13, 2006 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

| /s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   |
| Baltimore, Maryland           |   |
| September 13, 2006            |   |

----
|    |                                                                                                                                                          |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2019, of Pioneer Energy Services Corp.; and |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; |

|                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |
| /s/ Lorne E. Phillips                                |
| Lorne E. Phillips                                    |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Wisconsin Power and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Chief Financial Officer

 

May 4, 2007