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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          19,873
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,490
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,593
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,038
<PP&E>                                         132,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 275,812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,969
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,849)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   275,812
<SALES>                                         45,337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,337
<CGS>                                           50,447
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.99)


</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 31999R1518 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R1518

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1518/1999 of 12 July 1999 setting the amount of the payment on account of the cost of disposal of certain distillation products for 2000 **

*
Official Journal L 177 , 13/07/1999 P. 0007 - 0007 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1518/1999

of 12 July 1999

setting the amount of the payment on account of the cost of disposal of certain distillation products for 2000

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1627/98(2) and in particular Article 37(2) thereof,

Whereas, as regards alcohol from distillation as referred to in Articles 35 and 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87, the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) is to bear only the costs arising from its disposal; whereas the amount of the payment on account of the cost of disposal of the products must be fixed having regard to depreciation in a way similar to that by which alcohol from distillation as referred to in Article 39 of that Regulation is depreciated,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The amount of the payment on account of the cost of disposal of the products of distillation pursuant to Articles 35 and 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 shall be determined by application of a coefficient to the value of purchase made by intervention agencies.

For the 2000 financial year this coefficient shall be 0,70.

Article 2

The expenditure amounts determined in this way shall be notified to the Commission under the declaration established pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96(3).

Article 3

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

It shall apply from 1 October 1999.

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

Done at Brussels, 12 July 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 8.

(3) OJ L 39, 17.2.1996, p. 5.
# Úřední věstník C 184A/17.

| | ISSN 1725-5163 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 184A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 4717. července 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5163

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 184A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 4717. července 2004

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Oznámení |
| | Rada |
| 2004/C 184A/1 | | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

III   Oznámení

Rada

2004/C 184A/1

1

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

III Oznámení

Rada

| 17.7.2004 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 184/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2004

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 184/1

---

VOLNÉ MÍSTO

(ref. A/014)

GENERÁLNÍ ŘEDITEL

(2004/C 184 A/01)

Generální sekretariát Rady Evropské unie si přeje obsadit volné místo generálního ředitele na Generálním ředitelství H - spravedlnost a vnitřní věci.

Více informací (dostupných v angličtině a francouzštině) a přihlášky lze získat kontaktováním Oddělení pro výběr a nábor na této e-mailové adrese: service.recrutement@consilium.eu.int, nebo na internetové stránce: http://ue.eu.int/concours.

Lhůta: 3. září 2004, přičemž rozhodující je razítko podací pošty.

---
[No. 50212-3-I.

Division One.

December 23, 2002.]

#### Anita M. McEntyre, *Appellant,*v. The Employment Security Department, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-2-18503-9, Janet E. Garrow, J. Pro Tern., entered February 4, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Ellington, J., concurred in by Coleman and Agid, JJ.
#### BRITT v. SARATT.

(Decided November 20, 1916.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. John C. Pugh.

No counsel marked for appellant.

I. M. Engel/ for appellee.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 67

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE. 

4 There is established a Joint Congressional Committee 

5 on Inaugural Ceremonies (in this resolution referred to as 

6 the ‘‘joint committee’’), consisting of 3 Senators and 3 

7 Members of the House of Representatives appointed by 

8 the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House 

9 of Representatives, respectively. The joint committee is 

10 authorized to make the necessary arrangements for the 

11 inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice Presi12 dent-elect of the United States. 

13 SEC. 2. SUPPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE. 

14 The joint committee—

15 (1) is authorized to utilize appropriate equip16 ment and the services of appropriate personnel of 

17 departments and agencies of the Federal Govern18 ment, under arrangements between the joint com19 mittee and the heads of the departments and agen-
2

•SCON 67 ES 

1 cies, in connection with the inaugural proceedings 

2 and ceremonies; and 

3 (2) may accept gifts and donations of goods 

4 and services to carry out its responsibilities. 

Passed the Senate February 8 (legislative day, February 6), 2008. 

Attest:

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 67

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Establishing the Joint Congressional Committee on 

Inaugural Ceremonies.
----

Action brought on 21 July 2004 by EFKON AG against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

(Case T-298/04)

(2004/C 262/73)

Language of the case: German

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 July 2004 by EFKON AG, Graz-Andritz (Austria), represented by Georg Zanger, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant seeks the annulment of Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, arguing that, contrary to the requirement that legal measures be technologically neutral, it mandatorily prescribes specific technologies and thereby creates a market regime in favour of the technologies specified in the directive, infringing the principle of competition in the Community. The applicant complains that, with its technology (bi-directional high-speed active infra-red communication technology), it is excluded from the market for road toll systems.

The applicant further argues that the directive does not achieve its purpose, namely inter-operability between electronic road toll systems in the Member States, and at the same time hinders cooperation between the Member States, constituting an infringement of the subsidiarity principle. The applicant was not able to participate in the law-making process, thereby infringing its right to a fair hearing, and was discriminated against by the legal measure in relation to the microwave industry. The market regime created by the European legislature adversely affects the applicant in the exercise of its basic freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty.

----

(1)  Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community.

----
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

AUG 18 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN WALTER LORD, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

vs.

RON CHAMPION,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 98-6090

(D.C. No. 96-CV-45-L)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Lord, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from the

magistrate’s report and recommendation denying habeas relief, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Our review of the record indicates Mr. Lord did not file objections to the

magistrate’s report and recommendations. Accordingly, Mr. Lord has waived

appellate review, and our review of the record discloses no reason why the waiver
- 2 -

should not operate to bar review of Mr. Lord’s claims. See Talley v. Hesse, 91

F.3d 1411, 1413 (10th Cir. 1996). We DENY Mr. Lord’s application for a

certificate of probable cause and DISMISS the appeal. 

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

K-V Pharmaceutical Company
St. Louis, Missouri

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Numbers 2-56793, 2-76173, 33-46400, 33-44927,
333-00199, 333-48252 and 333-85516) and Registration Statement on Form S-3
(File Number 333-87402 and 333-106294) of our reports dated June 4, 2004,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of K-V
Pharmaceutical Company appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended March 31, 2004.


/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP


Chicago, Illinois
June 13, 2006
[Cite as State v. Little, 2022-Ohio-3980.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- vs -

JASON LITTLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

CASE NO. 2022-P-0051

Criminal Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2022 CR 00144

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

Decided: November 7, 2022

Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, 

OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Jason Little, pro se, Portage County Justice Center, 8240 Infirmary Road, Ravenna, OH 

44266 (Defendant-Appellant).

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.

{¶1} On September 16, 2022, appellant, Jason Little, pro se, filed a notice of 

appeal. Appellant states that he is appealing a February 17, 2022 trial court entry. 

However, he attached to his notice of appeal the Grand Jury Indictment against him for 

two counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs filed on February 17, 2022.

{¶2} A review of the trial court docket reflects that appellant’s jury trial is set for 

November 1, 2022.
2

Case No. 2022-P-0051

{¶3} R.C. 2505.02 defines the types of orders that constitute a final appealable 

order:

{¶4} “(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect 

determines the action and prevents a judgment; 

{¶5} “(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or 

upon a summary application in an action after judgment;

{¶6} “(3) An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial;

{¶7} “(4) An order that grants or denies a provisional remedy and to which both 

of the following apply:

{¶8} “(a) The order in effect determines the action with respect to the provisional 

remedy and prevents a judgment in the action in favor of the appealing party with respect 

to the provisional remedy.

{¶9} “(b) The appealing party would not be afforded a meaningful or effective 

remedy by an appeal following final judgment as to all proceedings, issues, claims, and 

parties in the action.

{¶10} “(5) An order that determines that an action may or may not be maintained 

as a class action; * * *.”

{¶11} In criminal cases, pursuant to R.C. 2953.02, a court of appeals only 

possesses jurisdiction to hear an appeal if it is from a “judgment or final order.” 

Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that “in a criminal case there must 

be a sentence which constitutes a judgment or a final order which amounts ‘to a 
3

Case No. 2022-P-0051

disposition of the cause’ before there is a basis for appeal.” State v. Chamberlain, 177 

Ohio St. 104, 106-107(1964); see also State v. Eyajan, 11th Dist. Ashtabula Nos. 2019-

A-0005, 2019-A-0006, 2019-A-0007, 2019-A-0008, 2019-A-0009, 2019-A-0010, 2019-

Ohio-419.

{¶12} In the present case, there has been no disposition of the underlying cause 

i.e., appellant has not been convicted or sentenced in his criminal case. Appellant has a 

remedy to appeal when the case is concluded by the trial court.

{¶13} Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of a final appealable 

order.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.
(79 South. 768)

#### CRAUT v. STATE.

(6 Div. 418.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 29, 1918.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1918.)

1. Criminal Law @=807(1) — Argumentative Instruotions.

Argumentative instructions are properly refused.

2. Criminal Law '@=>829(1) — Request Covered by Charge.

Requested instructions, clearly covered by the charge given, are properly refused.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Port, Judge.

Monroe Craut was convicted of assault with intent to ravish, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

William Vaughan, Smith & McCary, and Thomas Roe, all of Birmingham, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of assault with intent to ravish. There was evidence which, if believed, tends to sustain the verdict of the jury. The only questions presented arise from the refusal of certain special charges requested by the defendant.

Charge 1, the affirmative charge, was properly refused. The question of the defendant’s guilt, under the evidence, was for the jury.

[1,2] Charges 2, 7, and 8 were all argumentative, and were properly refused for that reason. Moreover, the propositions which these charges undertake to state were clearly covered by the oral charge of the court and the charges given at the request of the defendant.

We find' no reversible error in the record.

Affirmed.
#### *The State *against*Lawrence and others.

Where the surveyors have not court ou^ht to grant rule to why return not be set aside, (a)

CERTIORARI to the Common Pleas of *Salem,*to bring up the return of a private road, and proceedings thereon, Upon the road being laid out, and the return filed, a *caveat*was also duly filed. At the next term of the court, *982the *caveator*applied for a rule, to shew cause, why the should not beset aside, upon the following reasong. That two of the surveyors, had not taken the oath required by law. 2. That the surveyors did not pursue the courses and distances in the application. The court refused the rule, and ordered the return' to be recorded ; whereupon this writ was prosecuted ; and *Jeffers*moved that the proceedings of the court be reversed, and the return set aside, for the reasons filed in the Pleas; and also, because the court refused to grant the rule, applied for by the *caveator.*

(a)

*Matter of Public Road, 1*South. *398.*(a)

By the Court.

The Common Pleas certainly erred, in refusing the rule asked for. The first reason assigned, has been repeatedly adjudged sufficient to set aside the return. The surveyors must take the oath required by the statute, before they'act. The return of the road must, therefore, be set aside.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4701 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4701

 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
with respect to future interstate designations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2020

Mr. Gardner (for himself and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
with respect to future interstate designations, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ports-to-Plains Highway Act of 
2020''.

SEC. 2. FUTURE INTERSTATE DESIGNATION AND OPERATION.

    (a) Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate System.--
Section 1105(e)(5) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 109 Stat. 597; 118 Stat. 293; 129 
Stat. 1422; 133 Stat. 3018) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), in the first sentence--
                    (A) by inserting ``subsection (c)(14)(A)(ii) 
                (relating solely to the portion from Limon to I-76 in 
                the vicinity of Brush),'' after ``subsection 
                (c)(13),''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``subsection (c)(38),'' after 
                ``subsection (c)(37),''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by adding at the end the 
        following: ``A State having jurisdiction over any segment of 
        the routes referred to in subsection (c)(14)(A)(ii) (relating 
        solely to the portion from Limon to I-76 in the vicinity of 
        Brush) or (c)(38) shall erect signs, as appropriate and 
        approved by the Secretary, identifying such segment as a future 
        addition to the Interstate System.''.
    (b) Vehicle Weight Limitations.--Section 127 of title 23, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(v) Operation of Vehicles on Certain Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, 
and New Mexico Highways.--If any segment of the routes referred to in 
paragraph (14)(A)(ii) (relating solely to the portion from Limon to I-
76 in the vicinity of Brush) or paragraph (38) of section 1105(c) of 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public 
Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 2032; 114 Stat. 2763A-202; 119 Stat. 1210) is 
designated as a route on the Interstate System, a vehicle that could 
operate legally on that segment before the date of such designation may 
continue to operate on that segment, without regard to any requirement 
under this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
08/13/2010 15;05 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS glOOI/OOS 

Brian WaJlaesa 

11272 Wortham Crest Circle 

Manassas, VA 20109 

July 13, 2010 

Hearing Docket Clerk AGC-430 

Jim Connecly 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, B.C. 20591 

-'UL 14 2010 

"tAHIMG DOCKET 

^my)<^m,JAblb'lxx<^ 

To the Federal Aviation Administration: 

As in accordance with 14 CF.R. § 13.161 am requesting a hearing for my Case No, 

2010WP190018. 

This is my chosen course of action at this timeSincerely, 

Brian Wallaesa
Exhibit 32.2

     Certification of Chief Executive Officer under Section 1350

     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Visual Bible International, Inc. (the "Company")for the period
ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



Date: August 24, 2004              /s/Maurice Colson


                                   Maurice Colson, Principal
                                   Executive Officer



     The foregoing certification accompanied the Quarterly Report on
Form 10QSB filing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is being
reproduced herein for information only.  It is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any
filing of the Company, whether made before or after hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.  A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained b y the
Company and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### § 215.1 Purpose.

The purpose of these guidelines is to provide information concerning the Department of Labor's administrative procedures in processing applications for assistance under the Federal Transit law, as codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.

[73 FR 47055, Aug. 13, 2008]
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**125 KA 08-00544**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
GARTH O. BENNETT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (WILLIAM G. PIXLEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NICOLE M. FANTIGROSSI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), rendered January 24, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree (four counts). It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court