alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Ø | Contract      number: Zhenzhongyin Exiezi 000024; |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Maximum      amount of credit facilities to be provided: RMB 450    million; |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Term:      from March 4th,      2009 to February 3rd,      2010. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Purpose      of the loan is to provide working capital for the    Debtor; |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Remedies      in the event of breach of contract include adjustment of the credit      amount, suspension of credit, imposition of punitive interest and overdue      interest, an increase of guarantee deposit and the call back of loan      principal and interest beforematurity. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Procedure      on using the comprehensive creditfacility |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Guarantee |
|--------|-----------|

| Ø | Declaration      and promise of the Debtor |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Transferring      of the credit facility under the maximumamount |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Disputation      settlement |
|--------|-----------------------------|

| Ø | Fee |
|--------|-----|

| Ø | Attachment |
|--------|------------|

| Ø | Validity |
|--------|----------|

| Ø | Notification |
|--------|--------------|

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

F.A. REALTY INVESTORS CORP.

v.

BOARD OF REVISION OF TAXES

PETITION OF: STEVE A. FREMPONG

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 404 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth 

Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
(Reap. Dec. 8428)

Entry No. 59605.

#### Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes *v.*United States

(Decided May 4, 1955)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the instant appeal to reappraisement consists of Canned Corned Beef imported from Argentina, packed twelve 6 pound tins per case.

> That the issues involved in said appeal to reappraisement are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *United States*v. *International Commercial Co., Inc. and Armour & Co.,*Reapt. Dec. 8112.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the value or price, at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of Argentina in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States was $19.50 per case, less 9.4%.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise here involved, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Argentina.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in *United Stales*v. *International Commercial Co., Inc.*and *Armour & Co.,*Reapt. Dec. 8112, be incorporated in the record in the instant appeal to reappraisement and that such appeal be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was $19.50 per case, less 9.4 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 31.1



Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, William R. Reed, Jr., certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Commerce Financial
Corporation;



(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



(4) The registrants other certifying 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 registrant and 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in the report any change in the registrants internal
controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



(5) The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 10, 2004 |  | /s/ WILLIAM R. REED JR.
|                   |  | William R. Reed, Jr.   
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer
No. 39094.

#### Protests 754587-G, etc., of I. Reichwald et al. (New York, etc.).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

The protests were overruled.
**Table 3. NPS Summary of EGU SCR Costs Averages**  **Medians Counts**  **Averages Medians** **Counts** by Source by Sourceby Source by NPS by NPSby NPS EGU Reports or Agency or Agency 45 41 Emission rate w LNB+OFA+SCR 0.07 0.07 33 0.06 0.06 36 Reduction due to LNB+OFA+SCR 83% 83% 33 85% 86% 36 Total Captal Investment for LNB+OFA+SCR ($/kW) 344 $ 320

$ 33 126 $ 106

$ 36 Total Annual Cost 15,587,616 $ 15,593,808

$ 337,736,772 $ 7,080,678

$ 36 LNB+OFA+SCR Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 2,688 $ 2,635

$ 33 1,352 $ 1,303

$ 36

Emission rate w SCR only 0.07 0.07 44 0.06 0.06 39 SCR inlet emission rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.32 0.29 44 0.30 0.26 39 Reduction due to SCR only 73% 75% 44 78% 77% 39 Total Capital Investment for SCR ($/kW) 319 $ 295

$ 43 99 $ 85

$ 39 Total Annual Cost 16,655,913 $ 15,587,276

$ 426,441,686 $ 5,499,625

$ 39 SCR Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 4,771 $ 4,440

$ 43 1,841 $ 1,774

$ 39
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 309 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 222
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 309

                          [Report No. 110-656]

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 2008

 Ms. Norton (for herself, Mr. Graves, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Van 
Hollen, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Moran of Virginia, and 
  Mr. Wolf) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                              May 19, 2008

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR D.C. SPECIAL 
              OLYMPICS LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN.

    On June 6, 2008, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may jointly designate, the 2008 District of Columbia Special 
Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run (in this resolution referred to as 
the ``event'') may be run through the Capitol Grounds as part of the 
journey of the Special Olympics torch to the District of Columbia 
Special Olympics summer games.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.
                                                 House Calendar No. 222

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 309

                          [Report No. 110-656]

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 19, 2008

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 24, 2007.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

*1. Randall R. Schwartz, Orland Park, Illinois;*                     to acquire voting shares of First Personal Financial Corp., Orland Park, Illinois, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First Personal Bank, Orland Park, Illinois.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 4, 2007.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E7-8909 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### ROQUETTE AMERICA, INC., and Roquette Freres, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMYLUM N.V., Amylum France SAS, A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company, Inc., Tate & Lyle PLC, Laurent Gerber and Carole Piwnica, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 04-4064-CV.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Sept. 21, 2005.

Oleg Rivkin, Eric Lindquist, Fox Horan & Camerini, LLP, New York, N.Y., for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Stephen V. D’Amore, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, 111., (Terry M. Grimm, Norman K. Beck, and Louise R. Radin, New York, N.Y., on the brief), for Appellees Tate & Lyle PLC and A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company., Inc.

Jonathan K. Cooperman, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Aison L. MacGregor and Damon W. Suden, on the *392brief), for Appellees Amylum N.V., Amylum France SAS, and Carole Piwnica.

Jonathan K. Cooperman, Kelley Drye *&*Warren, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Alison L. MacGregor, Damon W. Suden, and James P. Hoffman, Keokuk Iowa, on the brief), for Laurent Gerber.

PRESENT: NEWMAN, CALABRESI, and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

AFTER ARGUMENT AND UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Roquette America, Inc. (“RAI”) and Roquette Freres (“Roquette”) appeal from a decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing their RICO and Lanham Act claims against Defendants-Appellees Amylum N.V. (“Amylum”), Amylum France SAS (“Amylum France”), A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company, Inc. (“Staley”), Tate & Lyle PLC (“Tate & Lyle”), Laurent Gerber, and Carole Piwnica.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the relevant facts and the specification of issues on appeal.

We affirm the decision of the District Court for substantially the same reasons stated in its opinion of June 9, 2004.

We have considered all of Appellants’ claims and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
# In the Court of Criminal

Appeals of Texas

══════════ No. WR

- 93,813

- 01

══════════

EX PARTE MICHAEL KEITH LUERA, JR. ,

Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════ On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Cause No. A

- 13,435

- A in the 173rd District Court

F rom Henderson County

═══════════════════════════════════════

Y EARY , J., filed a concurring opinion , in whic h S LAUGHTER , J ., join ed

. Applicant was convicted in 2009 of indecency with a child

– sexual
contact and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in 2010

. Luera v. State , No. 1 2

- 09

- 00 101

- CR (Tex. App.

— Tyler Feb . 2 6 , 2010) (mem. op., not designated for publication).LUERA

– 2

In April 2022, Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the county of convi ction. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC . art. 11.07. In his application, he alleges that he is actually innocent and that his plea was involuntary

. Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to further develop the record. I join the Court’s remand o rder. But I write separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and its possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith , 444 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua sponte consider the d octrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille , ___ S.W.3d ___,
No. WR

- 89,851

- 02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022) (Yeary, J., concurring). The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this one. Applicant’s trial occurred in 2009 , but t his writ application was not filed until over thirteen years later. 1 The record is also silent regarding circumstances that may excuse Applicant’s delay, and at least some explanation for the long delay in filing should be provided. Consistent with this Court’s precedent, the trial court “ may sua sponte consider and determ ine whether laches should bar relief.” Smith , 444 S.W.3d at 667. If the trial court does so, it must give Applicant the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay , and give the State’s prosecutors and/or former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state

1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of the State’s evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years after a conviction becomes f inal.” Ex parte Perez , 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe , 132 S.W.3d 434, 437

– 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)).LUERA

– 3

whether Applicant’s delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to defend against Applicant’s claims. Id. at 670. And ultimately, the trial court may include findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the doctrine of laches in its respo nse to this Court’s remand order. With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.

FILED : June 8, 2022 DO NOT PUBLISH
EXHIBIT 11.1


                     GEOWASTE INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                             Fully
                                                                                    Primary                 Diluted
<S>                                                                                <C>                    <C>
Weighted Average Common Shares
outstanding.............................................................           21,270,725             21,270,725

Convertible debt.........................................................               -                  2,574,475
Stock options and warrants outstanding...................................           2,200,669              2,200,669
Weighted average shares of common shares
outstanding..............................................................          23,471,394             26,045,869
                                                                                  ===========             ==========
Net income ..............................................................        $     45,346            $    99,296
                                                                                 ============            ===========
Earnings per share.......................................................        $       0.00            $      0.00
                                                                                 ============            ===========
</TABLE>
# C_2017104EN.01004501.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-145/15) (1)

1

((EAGGF and EAFRD - Area-related measures - Expenditure excluded from financing - Flat-rate financial corrections - Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality))

(2017/C 104/63)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented initially by: R.-H Radu, V. Angelescu, R. Mangu, D. Bulancea, N. Horumbă, E. Mierlea and T. Crainic, and subsequently by: R. Radu, V. Angelescu, R. Mangu, N. Horumbă, E. Mierlea and T. Crainic, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it concerns Romania; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it concerns Romania;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Romania. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Romania.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.

1

---
No. 54898.

#### Abercrombie & Fitch Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 159552-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 53797.

petition 6648-R (Baltimore).

#### Hutzler Brothers Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

From the testimony presented it appeared that at the time of entry the petitioner had not received notification from any source as to an increase in price for the merchandise and the record indicated that petitioner had no information in its possession relative to the valuation of the goods other than that stated in the consular invoices. On the record presented it was held that the petitioner acted without intention-to conceal or misrepresent the facts and that it did not intend to defraud the revenue of the United States or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.

Cole, J., concurring.