alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 12012M009 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12012M009

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE II: PROVISIONS ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES - Article 9 **

*
Official Journal C 326, 26/10/2012, p. 0020 - 0020 *

Article 9

In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.

--------------------------------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

MARKWEST LIBERTY MIDSTREAM &

RESOURCES, LLC,

 Respondent

 v.

CECIL TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING

BOARD,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 576 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

RANGE RESOURCES - APPALACHIA,

LLC,

 Respondent

 v.

CECIL TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING

BOARD,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 577 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 17, 2015

NO. 03-14-00809-CV

David Albers, Appellant

v.

James Russell Frost, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the district court on December 4, 2014. Having 

reviewed the record, it appears to the Court that David Albers has not prosecuted his appeal and 

did not comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the 

appeal for want of prosecution. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in 

this Court and the court below.
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 1206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00068]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Allied 
Communications, LLC

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent 
to grant to Allied Communications, LLC., a revocable, nonassignable, 
exclusive license to practice in the United States, the Government-
owned inventions described in U.S. Patent No. 7,685,207: Adaptive Web-
Based Asset Control System, Navy Case No. 83634, issued March 23, 
2010.//U.S. Patent application No. 12/650,413: Finite State Machine 
Architecture For Software Development, Navy Case No. 99,766, filed 
December 30, 2009.//U.S. Patent No. 8,238,924: Real-Time Optimization 
of Allocation of Resources, Navy Case No. 99956, issued August 7, 2012.

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file 
written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later 
than January 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with Naval Surface 
Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 
47522-5001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface 
Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 
47522-5001, telephone 812-854-4100.

    Authority:  35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

    Dated: December 31, 2012.
C. K. Chiappetta,
Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-00068 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
THOMAS BROCK Appellant

Vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE mo. 

### RECEIVEDIN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS

IN THE COURT OF 

## J'JN 152015 § § § CRIMINAL § § 

### §' OF TEXAS 

## AbelAcosta,Clerk

MOTION REQUESTING FOR A EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING("PDR")
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Come, Now, THOMAS BROCK, Appellant/ and files this Motion Requesting For A Extension Of Time For Filing ("PDR"), With this Court.

The, Appellant is requesting 45 days extension for filing his (PDR) within this Honorable Court. He is doing his (PDR) PRO SE and has just came off a Unit Lock down and has been unable to go to the Unit Law Library to. start his resea rch as to getting help on the requirements for a (PDR) etc. Respectfully, subratttted TnomasTE-dcl? )
PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMEMISES, CONSIDER, Herein the Appellant, Pray's this Honorable 

### Court will Grant this Motion Requesting for a Extension of Time for Filing (PDR) to 45 days from the date of June 22,2015.


## FILEDIN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

## JUN182015 AbelAcosta, Clerk Respectfully submitted

Tnomas BrockCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I, THOMAS BROCK, Appellant, hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the United States of American that on June 10,2015 a Origional of the 

### above forgoing Motion was send byU.S. Mail to the below address.

CLERK OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS P.O.BOX 12308 Austin, Texas 78711



### c/cBROCK

?. 

### Respectfully submitted 

### •"p-Ck? HOMAS BROCK 

### /TDCJ ID #1907902

Clements, Unit 9601 Spur 591 Amariilo/TX 79107-9606Clerk of the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS P.O.BOX 12308 Austin,Texas 78711
June 10,2015 RE: Filing Motion
Dear Clerk 

### Please find inclose a Motion Requesting for a Extension of time for filing 

### (PDR). Please assign a number to it from the Court and return me a copy of this request to You. Thank You, I look forward to Your Reply! Sincerely

Thomas Brock TDCJ-ID #1907902 W.P.Clements Jr, Unit 9601 Spur 591 

## Amarillo,TX 79107-9606 RECEIVEDIN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

## JUN 152015 

## AbelAcosta,ClerkClerk of the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS P.O.BOX 12308 Austin,Texas 78711
June 10,2015 

### REs Filing Motion.... Dear Clerk'!*' 

### Please find inclose a Motion Requesting for a Extension of time for filing 

### (PDR). Please assign anumber to it from the Court and returnme a copy of this request to You. Thank You/ I look forward to Your Reply! Sincerely
7~ Thomas Brock TDCJ-ID #1907902 W.P.Clements Jr, Unit 9601 Spur 591 AmarillcTX 79107-9606
# C_2012326EN.01033701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

DECLARATIONS

DECLARATIONS

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON,

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON

signed on 13 December 2007

A.   DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

17.   Declaration concerning primacy

Declaration concerning primacy

The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law.

The Conference has also decided to attach as an Annex to this Final Act the Opinion of the Council Legal Service on the primacy of EC law as set out in 11197/07 (JUR 260):

---
[No. 37431.

Department Two.

May 14, 1965.]

#### The City of Bremerton, *Respondent,*v. Benjamin B. Osborne, Jr., *Appellant.****

*Merkel & Cook,*by *Farrell E. Cook,*for appellant.

*Gerard N. Fisher,*for respondent.

*

Reported in 401 P.2d 973.

*282Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged and convicted of the offense of driving while under the influence of or affected by the use of intoxicating liquor. He appeals, contending evidence of the result of a breathalyzer test was improperly admitted.

In *State v. Baker,*56 Wn.2d 846, 355 P.2d 806 (1960), we outlined the four requirements which must be shown by the prosecution before the results of a breathalyzer test may be admitted in evidence. The requirements were stated to be (p. 852):

> (1) That the machine was properly checked and in proper working order at the time of conducting the test; (2) that the chemicals employed were of the correct kind and compounded in the proper proportions; (3) that the subject had nothing in his mouth at the time of the test and that he had taken no food or drink within fifteen minutes prior to taking the test; (4) that the test be given by a qualified operator and in the proper manner.

A careful review of that portion of the statement of facts brought here on appeal reveals that the prosecution produced prima facie evidence of compliance with each of the foregoing requirements. The defendant did not produce any evidence directly challenging the prima facie showing. He contented himself, rather, with questioning the qualifications of the officer who periodically checked the breathalyzer. machine and the sufficiency of the checking and testing procedures. Under our holdings in *State v. Baker, supra,*and *Seattle v. Bryan,*53 Wn.2d 321, 333 P.2d 680 (1958), defendant’s contentions go to the weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence.

Accordingly, we find no reversible error arising out of defendant’s assignments of error.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP) 

Date: May 31, 2006______________________

Subject: Sunset Review - 205.603; Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic 

livestock production 

Chair: Kevin R. O’Rell_________________________________ 

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: ___XXXXX_____ 

Guidance Statement: _

Other: ________ 

Statement of the Recommendation:

See attached Recommendation for Renewal of Hydrated Lime as Synthetic substances 

allowed for use in organic livestock production on 205.603, category use (b) as topical 

treatment, external parasiticide or local anesthetic as applicable. 

NOSB Vote: 

Moved: Hue Karreman Second: Andrea Caroe 

Yes – 12 

No – 0 

Abstain – 0 

Absent- 2 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation:

NOSB Sunset Material Vote 

Response by the NOP:
National Organic Standards Board 

Livestock Committee 

Final Recommendation for the Synthetic substances allowed for use in 

organic livestock production 

April 20, 2006

Category Use 

(b) As topical treatment, external parasiticide or local anesthetic as applicable. 

Committee Summary: 

Several commentors supported the continued listing of hydrated lime. One commentor 

objected to the continued listing of hydrated lime stating it is too harsh of a chemical to 

allow for direct contact with animals as a pest control agent, and it is hazardous to the 

humans who handle it. The Committee agrees with the commentors recommending 

the continuation of hydrated lime from the National List. 

NOSB Recommendation(s): 

Recommendations Made that are Based upon Comments Received – 205.603(b) 

The NOSB recommends to renew the following substances: 

(4) Lime, hydrated—as external pest control, not permitted to cauterize physical 

alterations or deodorize animal wastes. 

Moved: Hue Karreman Second: Andrea Caroe 

Board vote: Yes – 12 No – 0 Abstain – 0 Absent - 2
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1397 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1397

  To require the national instant criminal background check system to 
  notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of firearm transfer 
denials by reason of illegal or unlawful presence in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2019

 Mr. Cline (for himself, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Buck, Mr. Gaetz, 
Mr. Biggs, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. Steube, Mr. Riggleman, Mr. Griffith, 
   Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Gohmert, Ms. Cheney, Mr. Roy, Mr. 
  Stivers, and Mr. Scalise) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the national instant criminal background check system to 
  notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of firearm transfer 
denials by reason of illegal or unlawful presence in the United States.

    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 ``Notify ICE Act''.

SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION TO U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OF 
              FIREARM TRANSFER DENIALS BY REASON OF ILLEGAL OR UNLAWFUL 
              PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES.

    From time to time, the Attorney General shall transmit to U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland 
Security a report which identifies each individual with respect to 
whom, during the period covered by the report, the national instant 
criminal background check system established under section 103 of the 
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act has--
            (1) notified a person licensed under chapter 44 of title 
        18, United States Code, that the individual is ineligible to 
        receive a firearm; and
            (2) provided the notice because the information available 
        to the system indicates that the individual is illegally or 
        unlawfully in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
NUMBER 13-15-00148-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

AARON LEE ROBERT FLORES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 186th District Court

of Bexar County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Aaron Lee Robert Flores, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion 

to dismiss his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it.1 See TEX. R. APP.

 

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio pursuant 

to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 

(West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). 
2

P. 42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having 

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, 

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

16th day of April, 2015.
1400 Independence Avenue, SW.

Room 2635-S

Washington, DC 20250-0201

WORKSHEET FOR SANITARY CERTIFICATE FOR EXPORTS 

Export Worksheet for processed eggs and/or egg foods that are regulated by the FDA intended for human consumption.

Signature of Applicant (I acknowledge the information is factual and accurate.) Date

Return Address: Billing Information:

Company Name:_________________________________ Company Name:_____________________________

Contact Name:__________________________________ Tax I.D. Number:____________________________

Address:_______________________________________ Billing Address:______________________________

_______________________________________________ ____________________________________________

City, State, Zip code______________________________ Point of Contact:______________________________

Telephone:_____________________________________ Phone Number:_______________________________

□ US Mail □ Courier label attached Fax Number:_________________________________

□ (Optional) Fax copy ($4) #_______________________ □(Optional) Internal Billing Reference ____________

Consignor/Exporter (name and address): Consignee/Importer (name and address):

State of Origin of Product(s): Country of destination: ISO Code:

Place of Loading: Means of transport:

Conditions of transport/storage: Declared point of entry (BIP):

Producer/Manufacturer: Date of packing:

Type of packing:

Name of Products: Number of Packages: Product Production Code: Net Weight (lbs):
No. 07-13-00279-CR

Tryone Burleson

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the 140th District Court

 of Lubbock County

April 15, 2015

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated April 15, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgments of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>      THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
              FROM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONDENSED
              CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND NOTES TO CONDENSED
              CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
              ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      20,857,464
<SECURITIES>                                23,112,086
<RECEIVABLES>                               39,874,907
<ALLOWANCES>                                   350,025
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            86,511,827
<PP&E>                                      34,412,479
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,936,257
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             140,053,308
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       47,216,156
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,397
<OTHER-SE>                                  87,280,429
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               140,053,308
<SALES>                                    117,496,996
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           117,496,996
<CGS>                                        7,156,189
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               82,005,210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,906,506 <F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (1,110,593)<F2>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             22,539,684
<INCOME-TAX>                                 8,791,571
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         13,748,113
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,748,113
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.94
<FN>
<F1>MINORITY INTEREST SHARE OF NET INCOME AND LOSS ON EQUITY JOINT VENTURES
<F2>REPRESENTS NET INTEREST INCOME
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEPHEN FISKE, ANDREW FISKE, and MAS LIQUIDATORS, LLC,

Appellants,

v.

MICHAEL SEDELSKY,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2830

[April 11, 2024]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carlos Augusto Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. 

Case No. CACE23-940.

Gary Murphree of AM Law, LLC, Miami, and Max G. Soren of Soren Law 

Group, PA, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Phillip J. Sheehe and Johanna E. Sheehe of Sheehe & Associates, P.A., 

Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

FORST, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### In the Matter of Purnima Kothari, Respondent, v Cesar Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Appellant.

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated July 29, 1988, which denied the petitioner’s application for re-enrollment as a provider of services in the Medicaid Program, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated December 19, 1988, which annulled the determination and directed reinstatement of the petitioner as an authorized Medicaid provider.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

Medicaid providers who are denied re-enrollment pursuant to 18 NYCRR part 504 are not entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 18 NYCRR part 515 *(see, Matter of Akhatr v Perales,*173 AD2d 539; *Matter of G&S Pharmacy v Perales,*151 AD2d 668; *Matter of Garcia v Perales,*168 AD2d 557; *Matter of Winyard v Perales,*161 AD2d 317; *Matter of Bezar v New York State Dept. of Social Servs.,*151 AD2d 44). Thus, the failure to provide the petitioner with a hearing did not deprive her of due process of law.

Moreover, we find that the determination denying the petitioner’s application for re-enrollment was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
      32(b)







**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Progress Energy, Inc. (the
      “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter M. Scott III,
      Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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 2002, that:




(1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.











/s/
      Peter M. Scott III


Peter
      M.
      Scott III


Executive
      Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer


February
      26, 2007








This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.