alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls
o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 E0 06 1

. CHRI STOPHER M

. HUNT v . D EUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERI C AS.
Up o n co ns i derat i o n o f t h e Em erg en cy V e ri fi ed M o t i o n fo r Tem p o rary Res trai n i n g Ord er an d / o r Prel i m i n ary In ju n ct i o n fi l ed b y Ch ri s to p h er M

. Hu n t , s ai d

m o ti o n i s h ereb y

DENIED. Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 4 0

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## June 27, 2019

06/27/2019
# L_2014016EN.01000501.xml

| 21.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 16/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 16/5

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 47/2014

of 13 January 2014

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Dithmarscher Kohl (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Dithmarscher Kohl’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Dithmarscher Kohl’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Dithmarscher Kohl’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Dithmarscher Kohl’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of 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, 13 January 2014.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 232, 10.8.2013, 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

GERMANY

Dithmarscher Kohl (PGI)

---
§ 760.809 Eligible damaging conditions. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, to be eligible for benefits under this part the loss of the crop, or reduction in quality, or prevented planting must be due to damaging weather or related conditions as defined in § 760.802.
( b ) Benefits are not available under this part for any losses in quantity or quality, or prevented planting due to: ( 1 ) Poor farming practices;
( 2 ) Poor management decisions; or
( 3 ) Drifting herbicides.
( c ) With the exception of paragraph (d) of this section, in all cases, the eligible damaging condition must have directly impacted the specific crop or crop acreage during its planting or growing period.
( d ) If FSA has determined that there has been an eligible loss of surface irrigation water due to drought and such loss of surface irrigation water impacts eligible crop acreage, FSA may approve assistance to the extent permitted by section 760.814.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Klaus Willi Kastenholz, Appellant, v. Vincent R. Mancusi, as Warden of Attica Prison, *883Respondent.

Appeal unanimously dismissed as *moot.*Memorandum: It was stipulated upon oral argument that relator is no longer in custody. (See *People ex rel. Thomas*v. *Mancusi,*34 A D 2d 731.) (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming County Court dismissing writ of habeas corpus.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Witmer, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
EX-33 (g)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Document Custody
1015 10th Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414


Appendix I


ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA

Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
(the "Company") is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company has determined that the
servicing criteria are applicable in regard to the servicing platform for the
period as follows:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed
securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January
1, 2006, for which the Company provides document custody services, excluding any
publicly issued transactions issued by any government sponsored entity (the
"Platform").

Applicable Servicing Criteria: The servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities performed by the
Company with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). The
Company has determined that all other servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d) are not applicable to the Platform.

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006 (the "Period").

With respect to the Platform, the Company provides the following
assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

1. The Company is responsible for assessing the Company's compliance with
the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.

2. The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria. In performing this assessment, the Company used the criteria set forth
by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of
Regulation AB.

3. Based on such assessment, as of and for the Period, the Company has
complied, in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation
report with respect to the Company's assessment of compliance as of and for the
Period.


WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

By: /s/ Shari L. Gillund
Shari L. Gillund

Its: Senior Vice President

Dated: March 1, 2007
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 145-2 Filed 03/24/2007 Page 1 of 1
§ 760.1611 Application for payment. ( a ) An application for payment under this subpart must be submitted to the FSA county office serving as the farm's administrative county office by the close of business on a date that will be announced by the Deputy Administrator.
( b ) Once signed by a producer, the application for payment is considered to contain information and certifications of and pertaining to the producer regardless of who entered the information on the application.
( c ) The producer applying for the On-Farm Storage Loss Program under this subpart certifies the accuracy and truthfulness of the information provided in the application as well as any documentation filed with or in support of the application. All information is subject to verification or spot check by FSA at any time, either before or after payment is issued. Refusal to allow FSA or any agency of the Department of Agriculture to verify any information provided will result in the participant's forfeiting eligibility for this program. FSA may at any time, including before, during, or after processing and paying an application, require the producer to submit any additional information necessary to implement or determine any eligibility provision of this subpart. Furnishing required information is voluntary; however, without it FSA is under no obligation to act on the application or approve payment. Providing a false certification will result in ineligibility and can also be punishable by imprisonment, fines, and other penalties.
( d ) The application submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section is not considered valid and complete for issuance of payment under this subpart unless FSA determines all the applicable eligibility provisions have been satisfied and the participant has submitted all required documentation.
( e ) Application approval and payment by FSA does not relieve a participant from having to submit any form required, but not filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000759440
<NAME> BIG RIVER PRODUCTIONS LTD PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         103,453
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,185
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   103,453
<SALES>                                         20,565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,565
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      150
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,415
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,415
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
52.247-26 Government Direction and Marking.       As prescribed in 47.207-8(a)(3), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts for transportation or for transportation-related services when office relocations are involved:          Government Direction and Marking (Apr 1984)          The agency being relocated shall tag or mark property, showing floor, room number, and location where property is to be placed in the new building. The agency shall provide sufficient personnel to direct the Contractor’s personnel in the placement of the property at destination.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of the Application of Nyapati R. Rao, M.D., M.S., as Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Nassau University Medical Center, Respondent, for an Order Authorizing the Involuntary Treatment of Catherine F., a Patient at Nassau University Medical Center, Appellant.

Submitted October 9, 2007;

decided October 18, 2007

Appeal transferred, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, to the Appellate Division, Second Department, upon the ground that a direct appeal does not lie when questions other than the constitutional validity of a statutory provision are involved (NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b] [2]; § 5 [b]; CPLR 5601 [b] [2]).
| **National Center    for     Health Statistics            Division of Data     Services            6525 Belcrest Road     Hyattsville, MD     20782-2003     (301)458-4636      **

 **Data WarehouseHome | Search NCHS    | Contact us**
**Data Warehouse**
**Tabulated        dataStatistical        tables, charts, and graphsDetailed statistical tables Health, United        States, 1999Trends          in Health and Aging**
**Tabulated State Data**Healthy People 2000:**Selected Mortality ObjectivesSelected Natality        Objectives Health Status IndicatorsPriority Data NeedsTrends        in Health and Aging**

**Data base searches and queries****CDC WONDER**

**Micro-data****Public-use data files and documentationInter-University        Consortium for Political and Social ResearchFederal Electronic Research and Review Extraction Tool        (FERRET)**
**International        Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification**Rich text files (rtf):**2000****199819971996Guide, Conversion Table, and Addenda**

**Mortality component of the NVSS****Instruction ManualsMICAR        Data Dictionary**
 

**Home | Search    NCHS | Contact us**
**CDC Home | Search    | Health Topics A-Z**
This page last reviewed October 03, 2000

**U.S.    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES****Centers    for Disease Control and Prevention**    National Center for Health Statistics    Division of Data Services     Hyattsville, MD    20782-2003    (301) 458-4636
  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.55    
    


 
 

United Stationers Inc. Summary of Board of Directors Compensation    
    


        Following is a summary of the forms and levels of compensation to be provided to Directors during 2004. 



	Director Compensation Component
 
	 	2004 Amount

	Annual Retainer	 	$50,000 annual rate1
	
Board Meeting Fees2	
 	

 
	• In person	 	$2,000 per meeting
	• Telephonic	 	$1,000 per meeting
	
Committee Meeting Fees	
 	

 
	

• Held in connection with a Board meeting

or by teleconference



	
 	

 
	— Audit Committee Chairman	 	$1,500 per meeting
	— Other Committee Chairmen	 	$1,000 per meeting
	— Other non-employee members	 	$500 per meeting
	

• In-person meeting not held in

connection with a Board meeting

	
 	

 
	— All Chairmen	 	$1,500 per meeting
	— Other non-employee members	 	$1,000 per meeting
	
Equity Compensation	
 	

 
	• Chairman of the Board	 	Approximately $85,000 (6,000-share stock option grant in 2004)
	• Other non-Employee directors	 	Approximately $71,000 (5,000-share stock option grant in 2004)
	
Reimbursement	
 	

Reasonable travel-related expenses







1Rate
effective for the third quarter of 2004. 


2Fees
effective for meetings on and after July 27, 2004. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.55


United Stationers Inc. Summary of Board of Directors Compensation
#### § 622.1 Purpose.

This part sets forth the general policies for planning and carrying out watershed projects under Pub. L. 83-566, 68 Stat. 666 (16 U.S.C. 1001 *et seq.*) and flood prevention projects under Pub. L. 78-534, 58 Stat. 889 (33 U.S.C. 701b-1).
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6688

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SREEDHAR POTARAZU , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cr - 00261

- AJT

- 1; 1:18

- cv - 00914

- AJT )

Submitted : September 24, 2019 Decided: September 27, 2019

Before WYNN and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Sreedhar Potarazu, Appellant Pro Se. Elissa Hart

- Mahan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Aidan Taft Grano, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sreedhar Potarazu seeks to appea l the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Potarazu has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Potarazu’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# L_2014091EN.01000701.xml

| 27.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 91/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 91/7

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 308/2014

of 20 March 2014

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Almendra de Mallorca/Almendra Mallorquina/Ametlla de Mallorca/Ametlla Mallorquina (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Almendra de Mallorca’/‘Almendra Mallorquina’/‘Ametlla de Mallorca’/‘Ametlla Mallorquina’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Almendra de Mallorca’/‘Almendra Mallorquina’/‘Ametlla de Mallorca’/‘Ametlla Mallorquina’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Almendra de Mallorca’/‘Almendra Mallorquina’/‘Ametlla de Mallorca’/‘Ametlla Mallorquina’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Almendra de Mallorca’/‘Almendra Mallorquina’/‘Ametlla de Mallorca’/‘Ametlla Mallorquina’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of 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, 20 March 2014.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 317, 31.10.2013, p. 8.

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

SPAIN

Almendra de Mallorca/Almendra Mallorquina/Ametlla de Mallorca/Ametlla Mallorquina (PGI)

---
§ 614.8 Final technical determinations. ( a ) Preliminary HELC/WC technical determinations become final and appealable: ( 1 ) Thirty days after receipt of the preliminary technical decision by the participant unless the determination is appealed in a timely manner as provided for in this regulation.
( 2 ) Thirty calendar days after the beginning of a mediation session if a mutual agreement has not been reached by the parties; or
( 3 ) Upon receipt by the participant of the final technical determination issued on reconsideration as provided in § 614.7(c).
( b ) The participant may appeal the final technical determination issued under the HELC/WC provisions to: ( 1 ) The FSA county committee pursuant to 7 CFR part 780; or
( 2 ) NAD pursuant to 7 CFR part 11.