alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2006083EN.01001101.xml

| 22.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 83/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 83/11

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 467/2006

of 21 March 2006

determining the extent to which applications lodged in March 2006 for import licences under the regime provided for by tariff quotas for certain products in the pigmeat sector for the period 1 April to 30 June 2006 can be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1458/2003 of 18 August 2003 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for certain products in the pigmeat sector (1) , and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,

Whereas:

The applications for import licences lodged for the period 1 April to 30 June 2006 are for quantities less than the quantities available and can therefore be met in full.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for import licences for the period 1 April to 30 June 2006 submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1458/2003 shall be met as referred to in the Annex.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 21 March 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 208, 19.8.2003, p. 3. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 341/2005 (OJ L 53, 26.2.2005, p. 28).

1

---

ANNEX

| Group | Percentage of acceptance of import licences submitted for the period 1 April to 30 June 2006 |
| --- | --- |
| G2 | 100 |
| G3 | — |
| G4 | — |
| G5 | — |
| G6 | — |
| G7 | — |

Group

Percentage of acceptance of import licences submitted for the period 1 April to 30 June 2006

G2

100

G3

—

G4

—

G5

—

G6

—

G7

—

---
Exhibit 35.2



LOGO

Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Item 1123

Pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB, a review of the TransCentras activities during the year ended December 31, 2015 (the
Reporting Period) and of its performance under the servicing agreement between TransCentra andAmerican Express (the Servicing Agreement) has been made under the undersigned officers
supervision. To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, TransCentra has fulfilled its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



|               |  | 
|-------------- |  | 
|/s/ Lynn Boggs
|Lynn Boggs    
|President     

February 2, 2016

www.transcentra.com

tel:
678-728-2500    fax: 678-728-2501

4855 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Suite 245, Norcross, Georgia 30092
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Bell, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered February 10, 1986, convicting defendant after a jury trial of two counts of murder in the second degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree, and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing defendant as a predicate felon to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, 12 *Vi*to 25 years, and *IV2*to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant and an accomplice, who testified for the People, brutally murdered and robbed a clergyman who had befriended them. On the day of the crime, defendant carried a change of clothing in the event that the murder got bloody. After the murder, defendant and the accomplice made successive trips to the victim’s apartment to cart out the victim’s possessions, during which they were observed by two residents of the building.

*219During the direct testimony of the accomplice, a juror indicated that she was upset by the graphic and violent nature of the testimony and requested to be excused. After an off-the-record discussion between the Court and the juror, the Court indicated for the record that the juror had agreed to continue to serve, that she could do so impartially, and that she would be afforded a break in testimony should she become further upset. There is no indication on the record that the juror made any such subsequent requests. Although defendant objected to the Court’s failure to discharge this juror, defendant never requested an in-camera hearing, nor objected to the Court’s characterization of what had transpired. On the basis of this record, we cannot conclude that the juror was grossly unqualified within the meaning of CPL 270.35.

Defendant’s failure to establish a record by motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 deprives this Court of an adequate record on which to review defendant’s claim that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at trial. Nevertheless, we note that the People had an overwhelming case, consisting of well corroborated accomplice testimony, eyewitness testimony, and defendant’s own written and videotaped statements, placing on defendant a very heavy burden of demonstrating that he was deprived of meaningful representation *(Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668). Defendant has failed to show that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the verdict would have been different. *(People v De La Hoz,*131 AD2d 154, *lv dismissed*70 NY2d 1005.)

Finally, defendant’s failure to clearly articulate a challenge to the constitutionality of his predicate conviction (CPL 400.21 [3]), coupled with the failure of defendant or counsel to challenge defendant’s adjudication as a predicate felon *(see, People v Banks,*117 AD2d 611, *lv denied*67 NY2d 939) constitutes a waiver of this claim for review. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2189 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2189

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,2,3-Propanetriol, 
       polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene, 2-ethyl-2-
      (hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol, methyloxirane and oxirane.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,2,3-Propanetriol, 
       polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene, 2-ethyl-2-
      (hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol, methyloxirane and oxirane.

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

SECTION 1. 1,2,3-PROPANETRIOL, POLYMER WITH 2,4-DIISOCYANATO-1-
              METHYLBENZENE, 2-ETHYL-2-(HYDROXYMETHYL)-1,3-PROPANEDIOL, 
              METHYLOXIRANE AND OXIRANE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.11.80 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 1,2,3-Propanetriol, polymer 
with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene, 2-ethyl-2-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-
propanediol, methyloxirane and oxirane) is amended by striking ``12/31/
2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1883 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1883

       To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on 
                           iminodisuccinate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on 
                           iminodisuccinate.

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

SECTION 1. IMINODISUCCINATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--
            (1) in heading 9902.29.83 by striking the date in the 
        effective period column, and inserting ``12/31/2011''; and
            (2) in heading 9902.38.10 by striking the date in the 
        effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 10572 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

− Appellee
,

v ersus

DANIEL DIXON, a lso k nown as Jason Lee Smallwood
,

Defendant

− Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:16

- CR

- 29

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Daniel Dixon moves

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 26, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-10572 Document: 00514657217 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2018No. 18

- 10572

2 to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Dixon h a s not filed

a response

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-10572 Document: 00514657217 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2018
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2299 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2299

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Capa Homopolymers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Voinovich) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on Capa Homopolymers.

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

SECTION 1. CAPA HOMOPOLYMERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Caprolactone        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        homopolymer (CAS                                                   31/2011.......
                        No. 24980-41-4)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3907.99.01)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

October 28, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00427

- CR , 04

- 19

- 00428

- CR & 04

- 19

- 0042 9

- CR

The STATE of Texas

, Appellant

v.
Raymond SOTO, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CR9018

, 2018CR9019

, 2018CR9020 The Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee’s attorney has filed a motion to withdraw stating he was retained to represent appellee at the trial court level; however, appellee does not have the financial resources to employ counsel on appeal. The motion is GRANTED. Since appellee may be indigent, this appeal is ABATED to the trial court to determine if appellate counsel must be appointed. See Duncan v. State , 653 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (holding that appellate courts may abate ap peals so that trial court can assure appellant has effective assistance of counsel). The trial court is ORDERED to determine if appellee is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel and to cause the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing an order documenting its ruling within one month from the date this order is signed . All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 28th day of October, 2019

.

___________________________________ LUZ ESTRADA

, Chief Deputy Clerk
#### EXPORT S. S. CORPORATION et al. v. AMERICAN INS. CO., NEWARK, N. J., et al.

No. 375.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 17, 1940.

For former opinion, see 106 F.2d 9. Haight, Griffin, Deming & Gardner, of New York City (John W. Griffin and Frank J. Foley, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellants Export S. S. Corporation and American Export Lines, Inc.

Tompkins, Boal & Tompkins, of New York City (Arthur M. Boal, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant American Ins. Co.

Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, of New York City (Ira A. Campbell, Joseph F. Luley, and William P. Lage, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before SWAN, CLARK, and PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On rehearing a majority of the court adheres to its former opinion.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2223 

To suspend temporarily the duty on yarn of carded hair of Kashmir (cashmere) goats of less than 19.35 metric yarn count, not put up for 

retail sale. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. DODD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on yarn of carded hair 

of Kashmir (cashmere) goats of less than 19.35 metric 

yarn count, not put up for retail sale. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. YARN OF CARDED HAIR OF KASHMIR (CASH4 MERE) GOATS OF YARN COUNT LESS THAN 

5 19.35 METRIC, NOT PUT UP FOR RETAIL SALE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2223 IS

‘‘ 9902.12.27 Yarn of carded hair Kashmir 

(cashmere) goats, of yarn 

count less than 19.35 metric, 

not put up for retail sale 

(provided for in subheading 

5108.10.80) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A),


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Matthew W. Towse , certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NxStage Medical, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2014 (this “report”); and





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.








/s/ Matthew W. Towse


Matthew W. Towse





Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: August 15, 2014
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brady Hollenquest, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), dated March 20, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, tampering with a witness in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction for tampering with a witness in the third degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the defendant that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to establish that he was guilty of tampering with a witness in the third degree *(see,*Penal Law § 215.11; *see also, People v Delgado,*143 AD2d 1033). Although testimony established that the defendant approached and threatened to kill William Bianculli four days after Bianculli had observed the defendant commit a robbery at a retail store *(see,*Penal Law § 215.15 [1]; *see also, People v Gamble,*74 NY2d 904) and although Bianculli had described and identified the defendant by nickname to the police investigating the incident, the defendant had not then been arrested or charged in connection with the crime and Bianculli was not "about to be called as a witness in a criminal proceeding” (Penal Law § 215.11; *see also, People v Delgado, supra).*As a result, defendant’s conviction for tampering with a witness in the third degree must be reversed *(cf., People v Delgado, supra).*

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Truman E. McDONALD v. 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA.

No. 87-KH-2395.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 30, 1987.

In re McDonald, Truman E.; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 68558.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. GA RY AN THON Y V ALENTI NE, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50279 D. C. No . 3 : 0 9 - c r - 0 3 4 8 9 - J LS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a ni s L . S a m m a rt i no, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry15, 2011 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , a n dM . S M I T H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . G ary A ntho ny V al ent i ne appeal s f rom the 46 -m on th sent ence i m po se d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on f ori m port a t i on of

m a r i j ua naa nd a i di ng a nd abe tt i ng, i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 952 a nd 960 a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2. W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED FEB 23 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 50279 2 V a l e nt i ne c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n de t e rm i ni ng tha tthe g o v e rn m e n t’s s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e m o tio n u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( e ) p e rm itte dit t o con si der onl y f

ac t ors r el at ed t o sub st ant i alas si st ance , and n otthe fa ct ors s et f o rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , in d e te rm in in g th e e x te n t o f th e d o w n w a r dd e p a rtu r e . T h i s co n t en t i o n i s fo recl o sedb y U ni te d States v . J

ac k s on , 577 F . 3d 1032, 1036 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). V a le n tin e a ls o c o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le in l i gh tof the se ct i on 35 53 (a ) f ac t ors. B ec ause the di stri ctcourtcoul d n otre du ce V a le n tin e ’s s e n te n c e o n th e b a s is o f th o s e f a c to r s , th is c o n te n tio n f a ils . Se e i d. AF F I RME D.
EXHIBIT 23



               Consent Of Independent Certified Public Accountants


     We have issued our report dated March 17, 2000, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements of Tanner's Restaurant Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 26, 1999. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
report in the Registration Statement of Tanner's Restaurant Group, Inc.
(formerly Harvest Restaurant Group, Inc.) on Form S-8 (File No. 333-65719).



                                             /s/ Porter Keadle Moore, LLP
                                             ----------------------------
                                             Porter Keadle Moore, LLP




Atlanta, Georgia
April 10, 2000
EXHIBIT 11

                      CENTRAL PARKING CORPORATION

                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON
                      AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES

         For the years ended September 30, 1996, 1995, and 1994

            (Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

                                         1996           1995            1994
Primary earnings per Common and
  Common Equivalent Share:

  Net earnings                          $13,836        $ 9,944         $ 8,964

Shares used in the computation (a):

Weighted average Common shares
  outstanding                            17,376         15,372          15,372
Dilutive effect of Common stock
  equivalents                               115              -               -

Shares used in earnings per Common and
  Common equivalent share computation    17,491          15,372         15,372

Primary earnings per Common and
  Common equivalent share:

  Net earnings                          $  0.79         $  0.65        $  0.58

Fully diluted earnings per Common and
  Common equivalent share:

  Net earnings                          $13,836         $ 9,944        $ 8,964

Shares used in the computation (a):

  Weighted average Common shares
    outstanding                          17,376          15,372         15,372
  Dilutive effect of Common stock
    equivalents                             146               -              -

Shares used in earnings per Common and
  Common equivalent share computations   17,522          15,372         15,372


Fully diluted earnings per common and
  Common equivalent share:

  Net earnings                           $ 0.79          $ 0.65         $ 0.58



(a) Reflects the recapitalization, initial public offering of shares, and
    subsequent stock split of the Company described in Note 9 to the
    Consolidated Financial Statements.