alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Disestablishment of United States Joint Forces Command 

# Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense 

Pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and under 10 U.S.C. 161, I hereby accept the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and approve the disestablishment of United States Joint Forces Command, effective on a date to be determined by the Secretary of Defense. I direct this action be reflected in the 2010 Unified Command Plan.

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 161(b)(2) and 3 U.S.C. 301, you are directed to notify the Congress on my behalf.

                        You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                         *Federal Register*.                    

[FR Doc. 2011-590

Billing code 5000-04-P
### §6762. Right of action

#### (a) Right of action

Any person aggrieved by a decision or action of the Association may, after reasonably exhausting available avenues for resolution within the Association, commence a civil action in an appropriate United States district court, and obtain all appropriate relief.

#### (b) Association interpretations

In any action under subsection (a), the court shall give appropriate weight to the interpretation of the Association of its bylaws and standards and this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 106–102, title III, §332, as added Pub. L. 114–1, title II, §202(a), Jan. 12, 2015, 129 Stat. 26.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to this section were contained in section 6765 of this title, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 114–1.

A prior section 6762, Pub. L. 106–102, title III, §332, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1431, related to elimination of NAIC oversight, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 114–1. See sections 6757 and 6759 of this title.
# C_2012200EN.01000302.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — Peter Hehenberger v Republik Österreich

(Case C-188/11) (1)

1

(Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and No 817/2004 - Financial support for agri-environmental production methods - Checks - Beneficiary of agricultural aid - Fact of having prevented an on-the-spot check from being carried out - National legislation requiring the repayment of all aid paid over several years - Whether compatible)

2012/C 200/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Hehenberger

Applicant:

Defendant: Republik Österreich

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of said Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (OJ 2004 L 153, p. 30) — Checks and penalties — Legislation of a Member State requiring, in the event that a recipient of agricultural support prevents a check, repayment of all support received over a period of 5 years — Proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1257/1999, does not preclude national rules which provide that, where a farmer who is the beneficiary of financial support prevents an on-the-spot check of the land concerned, all the support already granted during the commitment period to that farmer in relation to an agri-environmental measure must be repaid, even where it has already been paid in respect of a number of years.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

1

---
# C_2010274EN.01001602.xml

| 9.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/16

---

Action brought on 3 August 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-391/10)

()

2010/C 274/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schietere de Lophem, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (1) or, in any event, by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (1) or, in any event, by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2007/36/EC expired on 3 August 2009. As at the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified the Commission thereof.

---

(1)  OJ L 184, p. 17.

1

---
SET HER UP FOR SUCCESS IN 

AND OUT OF THE CLASSROOM.

Support your child’s overall health and wellness by being 

informed.

It’s important to talk about the risks of underage drinking and substance use from a 

young age, and continue those conversations as your child gets older and becomes 

more independent. For tips on how—and when—to begin the conversation, visit 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

#TalkTheyHearYou PEP20-03-01-033
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-30928

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

STEVEN GERACI, STEVEN COLLARA, and CHALMETTE JEWELRY, INC. 

Defendant-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CR-274)

August 18, 1997

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants Geraci, Collara, and Chalmette Jewelry, Inc. were

found guilty by a jury under 18 U.S.C. § 371 for conspiring to

violate the federal firearms law and under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) for

selling firearms and ammunition to a convicted felon. Appellants

assign numerous points of error on appeal including Brady, search
warrant, Grand Jury and Confrontation Clause issues, as well as

prosecutorial misconduct, and insufficiency of evidence claims. 

Having considered the briefs and oral arguments of counsel

and the record, we conclude that the district court did not commit

reversible error. The appellants’ convictions are AFFIRMED.
### §8205. Streamlined application for commercial purchasers

A surplus lines broker seeking to procure or place nonadmitted insurance in a State for an exempt commercial purchaser shall not be required to satisfy any State requirement to make a due diligence search to determine whether the full amount or type of insurance sought by such exempt commercial purchaser can be obtained from admitted insurers if—

(1) the broker procuring or placing the surplus lines insurance has disclosed to the exempt commercial purchaser that such insurance may or may not be available from the admitted market that may provide greater protection with more regulatory oversight; and

(2) the exempt commercial purchaser has subsequently requested in writing the broker to procure or place such insurance from a nonadmitted insurer.

(Pub. L. 111–203, title V, §525, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1591.)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 14, 2020

No. 04-20-00499-CV

WEEKS MARINE COMPANY, LLC,

Appellant

v.

David LANDA,

Appellee

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-20-197

Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On December 11, 2020, appellant filed (1) a Motion Recommending 

Admission Pro Hac Vice and (2) an Unopposed Non-Resident Attorney’s Motion for 

Admission Pro Hac Vice, each requesting this court allow Mr. Jefferson R. Tillery to 

appear pro hac vice to serve as appellate co-counsel for appellant. The motions are GRANTED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of December, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,075
<SECURITIES>                                    47,225
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,238
<INVENTORY>                                        753
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               205,288
<PP&E>                                         564,767
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,205
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 737,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          222,037
<BONDS>                                        348,576
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           388
<OTHER-SE>                                     160,716
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   737,542
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,109
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  186,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,531
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,786
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (41,361)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,118)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,243)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,243)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.92)


</TABLE>
Everglades National Park

Everglades Park Statistics

Area Statistics

Total acreage including expansion (land and water): 1,509,000 acres (610,684

hectares, 2,358 square miles), in Dade, Monroe, and Collier Counties

•

Designated Wilderness: 1,296,500 acres (524,686 hectares); Potential Wilderness:

81,900 acres (33,144 hectares); for a total of 86% of the total park area

•

Elevation: 0 to 8 feet (2.4 m) (average 6 feet / 1.8 m)•

Average rainfall: 60 inches (152 cm) per year; Rainy season: May through September

(mosquito season coincides with the rainy season)

•

Hurricane Season: May 1 through November 15•

Average temperature: Winter - High 77°F (25 C), Low 53°F (12 C); Summer - High

87°F (31 C), Low 67°F (19 C)

•

Significant Dates

Park authorized: May 10, 1934; Established: December 6, 1947, dedicated by

President Harry S Truman at Everglades City 

•

Designated Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site on October 26, 1976;

Wetland of International Importance on June 4, 1987

•

Wilderness designated on November 10, 1978•

Hell's Bay Canoe Trail (8 miles / 13 km) and the Wilderness Waterway (99 miles /

159 km) received National Trails Designation on March 20, 1981

•

Everglades Expansion Act added East Everglades (109,500 acres / 44,315 hectares) to

the park on December 13, 1989

•

Chekika State Park donated by the State of Florida on October 1, 1991•

Did You Know?

Around 200 VIPs (Volunteers-in-Parks) assist Everglades National Park

each year through hours of hard work and dedication.

Last Updated: July 28, 2011 at 15:48 MST

Everglades National Park - Everglades Park Statistics (U.S. National Park Service) Page 1 of 1

http://www.nps.gov/ever/parknews/parkstatistics.htm 12/5/2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 THAT WERE
FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         (1)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (1)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (1)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2013304EN.01000801.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/8

---

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 24 July 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-468/11) (1)

1

2013/C 304/14

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

1

---
|   | x | the      Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the      year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange      Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section      13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|--------|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | x | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/      Jeffrey W. Epstein        |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Jeffrey      W. Epstein            |   |
|   |   | President                          |   |
|   |   | (Principal      Executive Officer) |   |
|   |   | March      27 , 2009               |   |
|   |   |                               |   |
|   |   | /s/      Vincent Loiacono          |   |
|   |   | Vincent      Loiacono              |   |
|   |   | Chief      Accounting Officer      |   |
|   |   | (Principal      Financial Officer) |   |
|   |   | March      27 , 2009               |   |

----
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Pamela J. Montpelier, hereby certify that: 

 

(1)    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Service Bancorp, Inc.; 

 

(2)    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate 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 otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport; 

 

(4)    The small business issuer’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and we have: 

 

a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)    Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

(5)    The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons fulfilling theequivalent functions): 

 

a)    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

/s/ PAMELA J.MONTPELIER                                    

Pamela J. Montpelier 

Chief Executive Officer 

February 13, 2004
No. 19,781.

#### Dorothea LaPoe *v.*Andrew Wysowatcky as Executor of the Estate of Walter F. Wright, Deceased, etc.

(366 P. [2d] 585)

Decided November 27, 1961.

Rehearing denied December 18, 1961.

Messrs. Cole and Maley, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. A. F. Greco, for defendant in error.

*In Department.*

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Day.

Plaintiff in error, as heir, devisee and legatee under the will of decedent Walter F. Wright, was one of two petitioners who sought to remove defendant in error Wysowatcky as special administrator of the Walter F. Wright Estate. To the order of the court denying the petition, this writ of error is directed.

The record discloses the following timetable: The death of the testator was January 8, 1961. Defendant in *457error was appointed special administrator on January 10. Petition for the removal of the special administrator was filed on January 30, and hearing thereon was had on February 8, on which date the court denied the petition and refused to remove the special administrator. Motion for new trial or hearing was denied on February 21.

Thereafter, on March 13, the will of the decedent was admitted to probate, and in it Wysowatcky was named the executor. Pursuant to such nomination, the court appointed the defendant as executor on March 13, 1961. All parties, including the plaintiff in error, were notified of the date on which the hearing for probate of the will would be had and were on notice that by virtue of the statute, C.R.S., ’53, 152-5-19, the person named as executor in the will would be appointed on that date and would be entitled to letters testamentary. No objections were made to the admission of the will to probate or to the appointment of the executor, who took his oath on March 13, 1961. Wysowatcky’s appointment as special administrator terminated when, pursuant to the will, he became the executor, and at that moment the question of whether the court should or should not have removed the special administrator became moot.

Accordingly, the writ of error is dismissed.

Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice McWilliams concur.