alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         605,166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  391,901
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,421,388
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,441,195
<PP&E>                                          34,097
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,467
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,463,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          174,342
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,288,685
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,463,027
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,751
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               136,782
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (121,527)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (121,527)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (121,527)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
23.9001 General.

(a) See link to “Vaccination Deviation Flow Chart” at PGI 23.9001. (b) DFARS 252.223-7999 does not

apply to contract actions executed in the system for automated simplified acquisitions.

Parent topic: SUBPART 23.90 – ENSURING ADEQUATE COVID-19 SAFETY PROTOCOLS FOR

FEDERAL CONTRACTORS
PGI 215.300 -Scope of subpart.

See the policy tab for Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting memorandum dated

August 20, 2022, entitled “Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures,” that provides the

procedures to be used within DoD when conducting negotiated, competitive acquisitions utilizing

FAR part 15 procedures.

Parent topic: PGI 215.3 -SOURCE SELECTION
# L_2023164EN.01010901.xml

| 29.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 164/109 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 164/109

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 354/2022

of 9 December 2022

amending Annex XXII (Company law) to the EEA Agreement [2023/1296]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1392 of 11 August 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 as regards International Accounting Standard 12 (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1392 of 11 August 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 as regards International Accounting Standard 12 (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XXII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XXII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 10ba (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008) of Annex XXII to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘- | 32022 R 1392: Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1392 of 11 August 2022 (OJ L 211, 12.8.2022, p. 78).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘-

32022 R 1392: Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1392 of 11 August 2022 (OJ L 211, 12.8.2022, p. 78).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) 2022/1392 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 10 December 2022, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 9 December 2022.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kristján Andri STEFÁNSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 211, 12.8.2022, p. 78.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: March 26, 2013 

## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC ''''! 1-1 Li i

DocketNo
.

### .FAA-2012-0781 BRAILLE BATTERY, INC. ) 

### ) ) ) ) Case No. 2011 SO 700298 Respondent


### NOTICE OF PRE-HEARING STATUS CONFERENCE OnNovember 2, 2012, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed. OnFebruary 13, 2013, a Notice ofWithdrawal as Counsel for Braille Battery, Inc. was filed. This Notice instructed thatfuture communications be directed to Respondent's CEO, acting as its lay representative. 

### YOU ARE HEREBY NOTICED: 1. Pursuantto 14 C.P.R.§ 13.205(a)(l), a pre-hearing status conference will be held Thursday, Aprilll, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time. The Office ofHearings will provide the parties a call-in number and passcode priorto the pre-hearing status conference. 2. The purpose ofthe pre-hearing status .conference 

### will be to assess the progress ofthe proceeding, make any necessary.changes to the litigation schedule, and address any motions, issues, or concerns ofthe parties. ·

Attachment: Service List

### FDMS No. FAA-2012-0781

.(Civil Penalty Action) 

### SERVICE LIST- BY 

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue,**S.W~** 

### Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building-Suite 2W1000 1



### Mr. ,Gerald A. Ellis, Esq. Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Mr. Blake Fuller, CEO Respondent'sRepresentative Braille Battery, Inc., Respondent 6935 15th StreetE, Building 115 Sarasota, FL 34243 blake@braillebattery.com TEL: 941-312-5047 Judge J. 

### E. Sullivan US. Administrative LawJudge ONE COPY



### U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20/Room E11-310 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by

### u.s. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building,..-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

Re: Donna Dorsey Davis vs. Richard M. Dorsey, et al

 Civil Action No. 2:06cv766-DRB

The above-styled case has been reassigned to District Judge Myron H.

Thompson.

Please note that the case number is now 2:06cv766-MHT. This new case

number should be used on all future correspondence and pleadings in this

action.

 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 3 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 72

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 72.164 Control of measuring and test equipment.

The licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall establish measures to ensure that tools, gauges, instruments, and other measuring and testing devices used in activities affecting quality are properly controlled, calibrated, and adjusted at specified periods to maintain accuracy within necessary limits.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I , Corbin R. Davis, 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.

____ _____________________________________ Clerk September 4, 2012

p0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

144969

ANDRE L. CAMMON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 144969

COA: 304282

Jackson CC: 10

- 003652

- AH

G. ROBERT COTTON CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY WARDEN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On or der of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 26, 2012 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1083 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1083

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 15, 2006.
    Resolved, That the following Member be and is hereby elected to the 
following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Education and the Workforce: Ms. Sekula Gibbs.
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Ms. Sekula Gibbs.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### § 600.23 [Reserved]
# EUR-Lex - 31979D0355 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31979D0355

**79/355/EEC: Commission Decision of 20 March 1979 exempting the Kingdom of Denmark from applying to certain species Council Directive 70/458/EEC on the marketing of vegetable seed (Only the Danish text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 084 , 04/04/1979 P. 0023 - 0023 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 20 March 1979 exempting the Kingdom of Denmark from applying to certain species Council Directive 70/458/EEC on the marketing of vegetable seed (Only the Danish text is authentic) (79/355/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 70/458/EEC of 29 September 1970 on the marketing of vegetable seed (1), as last amended by Directive 78/692/EEC (2), and in particular Article 42 (a) and (b) thereof,

Having regard to the request made by the Kingdom of Denmark,

Whereas sprouting broccoli, chicory, water melon and fennel have no significance for Denmark although they are produced or at least marketed there in insignificant quantities ; whereas the Directive makes it possible to grant exemption for the species concerned, and at the same time does not lay down any particular requirements;

Whereas corn salad is not normally cultivated in Denmark ; whereas the seeds of this species are not propagated or marketed there;

Whereas these conditions have held for some time ; whereas it is appropriate to exempt Denmark from applying the provisions of the Directive to this latter species also;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Kingdom of Denmark is exempted from applying Directive 70/458/EEC, with the exception of the provisions of Article 16 (1) and Article 30 (1) thereof, to the species listed below: (a) Brassica oleracea L. convar botrytis (L) Alef. var. italica Plenck (sprouting broccoli or calabrese);

(b) Cichorium intybus L. var. foliosum Bisch. (chicory);

(c) Citrullus vulgaris L. (water melon);

(d) Foeniculum vulgare P. Mill. (fennel);

(e) Valerianella locusta (l.) Betcke (v. olitoria Polt.) (corn salad or lamb's lettuce).

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.

Done at Brussels, 20 March 1979.

For the Commission

Finn GUNDELACH

Vice-President (1)OJ No L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 7. (2)OJ No L 236, 26.8.1978, p. 13.
#### §§ 781.61-781.64 [Reserved]
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 of Archon Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Paul W. Lowden, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Grant L. Siler, Principal Accounting 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 2003, that to our knowledge:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                             |  |                
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------
|Dated:                                                       |  | August 13, 2010
|                                                            
|/s/    Paul W. Lowden                                       
|Paul W. Lowden                                              
|Chairman of the Board, President
And Chief Executive Officer
|                                                            
|/s/    Grant L. Siler                                       
|Grant L. Siler                                              
|Principal Accounting Officer                                

This certification accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by

such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         234,862                 234,862
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,461,443               8,461,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (370,000)               (370,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  7,869,139               7,869,139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,923,795              16,923,795
<PP&E>                                      11,109,327              11,109,327
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,583,536)             (3,583,536)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,853,831              24,853,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      (6,616,915)             (6,616,915)
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     (285,131)               (285,131)
<OTHER-SE>                                (13,386,693)            (13,386,693)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              (24,853,831)            (24,853,831)
<SALES>                                      6,581,192              13,059,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,581,192              13,059,357
<CGS>                                      (3,520,406)             (6,874,832)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (6,732,181)            (12,980,700)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (146,139)               (324,382)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (52,500)                (75,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (146,373)               (300,856)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (297,128)               (245,725)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (297,128)               (245,725)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (297,128)               (245,725)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)                   (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)                   (.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### Gail Marie Clemens, Respondent, v Todd August Clemens, Appellant.

[817 NYS2d 87]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated October 19, 1993, the defendant former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated December 10, 2004, which, in effect, resettled an order of the same court dated June 25, 2004, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the plaintiff former wife’s motion to hold him in contempt for his failure to pay child support, directed entry of a money judgment against him for child support arrears, and directed that he pay the plaintiff former wife $50,000 within 10 days after service upon him of a copy of the order with notice of entry, to purge himself of his contempt.

Ordered that the order dated December 10, 2004 is reversed, on the law, with costs, the order dated June 25, 2004 is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

At the commencement of the contempt hearing the defendant, appearing pro se, asked for the assistance of assigned counsel on the ground that he was unemployed and had no income or assets. These contentions were not refuted. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s request for assigned counsel on the ground that “[t]he court will not, on the strength of the papers I have in this record, appoint an attorney for you.” This was error. Under the facts presented at the hearing, the defendant set forth sufficient grounds for the assignment of counsel *(see*Judiciary Law § 770; *Holmes v Holmes,*89 AD2d *933921 [1982]; *see also*Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [vi]; *Matter of Dell v Dell,*135 AD2d 475 [1987]). His application should not have been summarily denied based upon the purported insufficiency of his papers. Under these circumstances, upon remittitur, the appellant is also entitled to a new hearing on the plaintiff s motion.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the plaintiffs mere commencement of a proceeding in the State of Connecticut to enforce prior New York orders awarding child support, did not divest the New York courts of jurisdiction over the matter, especially with respect to arrears accruing prior to commencement of the Connecticut proceeding *(see*Family Ct Act § 580-205 [c]; *Matter of Parenzan v Parenzan,*285 AD2d 59, 66 [2001]). However, the defendant must be credited with any arrears paid to Connecticut authorities. The new determination with respect to arrears shall state how the amount owed was computed and describe any credits for payments.

Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for reconsideration of the defendant’s application for assigned counsel, and thereafter a new hearing and ruling on the plaintiffs motion. In light of this determination, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Florio, J.P., Crane, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 6, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-11-00680-CR

JACOB WHEELER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-57968-H

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, O’Neill, and Murphy 

Opinion by Justice O'Neill

Appellant Jacob Wheeler appeals his conviction for manslaughter. After finding 

appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, at life 

confinement. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in overruling his objection 

to extraneous offense evidence admitted at punishment. 

In the punishment phase, the State presented evidence that appellant confessed to several 

extraneous offenses. Appellant asserts the trial court erred in admitting the extraneous offense 

evidence because the State failed to present sufficient proof appellant committed the offenses. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 37.07, § 3(a)(1) (West Supp. 2012). In particular, he 

asserts the State failed to prove the “corpus delicti” of the extraneous offenses. The corpus 

delicti doctrine requires that evidence independent of a defendant’s extrajudicial confession 

show that the “essential nature” of the charged crime was committed by someone. Bible v. State,
–2–

162 S.W.3d 234, 246 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The corpus delicti doctrine is concerned with 

preventing a conviction from being based solely upon a false confession. Id. at 247. When the 

offense at issue is extraneous, offered at the punishment stage, no concern about the defendant’s 

conviction arises. Id. Therefore, the corpus delicti doctrine does not apply to extraneous 

offenses offered at the punishment phase. Cf. id.; see also Padron v. State, 988 S.W.2d 344, 346 

(Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). We resolve the sole issue against appellant.

We affirm appellant’s conviction.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

110680F.U05

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O'NEILL

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JACOB WHEELER, Appellant

No. 05-11-00680-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 1, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-57968-H.

Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill. 

Justices Bridges and Murphy participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2013.

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O'NEILL

JUSTICE