alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012326EN.01004701.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

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE II

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 3

THE UNION'S ANNUAL BUDGET

Article 315

(ex Article 273 TEC)

(ex Article 273 TEC)

If, at the beginning of a financial year, the budget has not yet been definitively adopted, a sum equivalent to not more than one twelfth of the budget appropriations for the preceding financial year may be spent each month in respect of any chapter of the budget in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations made pursuant to Article 322; that sum shall not, however, exceed one twelfth of the appropriations provided for in the same chapter of the draft budget.

The Council on a proposal by the Commission, may, provided that the other conditions laid down in the first paragraph are observed, authorise expenditure in excess of one twelfth in accordance with the regulations made pursuant to Article 322. The Council shall forward the decision immediately to the European Parliament.

The decision referred to in the second paragraph shall lay down the necessary measures relating to resources to ensure application of this Article, in accordance with the acts referred to in Article 311.

It shall enter into force thirty days following its adoption if the European Parliament, acting by a majority of its component Members, has not decided to reduce this expenditure within that time-limit.

---
United States Department of Agriculture 

Organic Integrity Dashboard – 12/31/2019 

A quarterly review of National Organic Program enforcement activities 

465 Cases in Progress 

As of 12/31/2019 

487 Closed Cases by Outcome 

12 Months ending 12/31/2019 

Uncertified 

Organic 

Claims 

55% 

Prohibited Practice 

8% 

8% 

Pesticide Residue 

Fraud 

5% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

Labeling Error 

Surveillance 

Fraudulent Certificate 

Inquiry 

Prohibited Substance 

7% 

5% 

Voluntary 

Compliance 

No Violation 

38% 

21% 

Administrative Actions 

1% 

1% 

Surrender of Certification 

Fraudulent Certificates Posted 

Settlement, Civil Penalty, Appeal 

Insufficient Evidence 

Outside NOP authority/Other 

Referrals – California or International 

Referrals – Criminal (5) 

4% 

3% 

6% 

15% 

5% 

6% 

 

 

 

 

 

Investigations & Inquiries by Fiscal Year 700 140% 

120% 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

Completed Investigations 129 127 279 260 285 390 360 470 335 413 129 

Completed Inquiries 30 197 248 63 

New Investigations 194 183 278 215 411 548 508 395 370 374 105 

Total Incoming 194 183 278 215 411 548 508 425 567 622 168 

Percentage completed 66% 69% 100% 121% 69% 71% 71% 118% 94% 106% 114% 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

Percentage 

* 

500 

600 

* 

Fiscal year 2020 

numbers as of 

1/24/2020. 

completed includes 

open cases from 

prior periods. 

* 

* 

Q1 Highlight: Pasture Surveillance Project - Ongoing 

Unannounced on-farm audits targeting higher risk operations. 

Risk factors include operation size, geographic location, and history. 

• Most dairies were found to be in compliance. 

• Two dairy operations surrendered certification. 

• One dairy cited with a proposed suspension. 

• One certifier entered into a settlement agreement with USDA. 

• Dairy/Livestock training added to the Organic Integrity 

Learning Center to increase certifier consistency. created with mapchart.net 

2018/ 

2019 

For additional details on the National Organic Program visit www.ams.usda.gov/Organic
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sidney Purdie, Appellant.

—Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered March 7, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 12 lá years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The complainant testified that he awakened at 1:00 a.m., to find defendant, armed with an umbrella, standing outside his bedroom door. After a struggle, the complainant gained the upper hand, and defendant, who lost a sneaker in the process, was forced out of the house through an open window. Defendant, wearing a plastic bag on one foot, was arrested in the subway a short time later.

During cross-examination of the complainant, the court said, “Wait a minute”, and told the jury “that questions are not evidence * * * It’s the question and the answer that emanates from the lips of the witness that is evidence”. The court also asked the complainant a number of questions. During cross-examination of the detective, the court again cautioned the jury that “the question coupled with the answer constitutes evidence.” After the prosecutor cross-examined defendant about the path he had taken to the complainant’s house, the court asked about a dozen questions, several of which focused on whether the train ran under or above-ground.

Defendant’s argument on appeal that the court’s instructions were untimely, and its questions unfair, has not been preserved for our review as a matter of law. *(People v Acosta,*161 AD2d 177, *lv denied*76 NY2d 784.) It was incumbent on counsel to attempt to register some protest had he had grounds to believe that the court exceeded its permissible role. *(People v Charleston,*56 NY2d 886.) That counsel "thanked” the court in the middle of cross-examination of Rodriguez for reminding the jury that questions were not evidence was insufficient. In any event, were we to review defendant’s claims in the interest of justice, we would nevertheless affirm, as the questions were clarifying and none of the court’s actions prevented the jury from arriving at an impartial verdict on the merits *(People v Moulton,*43 NY2d 944), or prevented defendant from pursuing his defense. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Randall K.Gausman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the QuarterlyReport of Tut Systems Inc., on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and thatinformation contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairlypresents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Tut Systems, Inc.

 

 
|                   | By:    | /s/ Randall  K. Gausman                                                             |   |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Randall K.  Gausman                                                                 |   |
|                   |   | Vice  President, Finance and Administration,  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |   |
| Date: October 28, 2004 |   |                                                                                |

 

----
p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1170 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



# Document

Number: 

# 91 ) F

. R

. Novembe r19 , 199 0
Docket Number: 

# A-88-2 4

Printed 4/30/200810:49:06

AM Sheet 91 of 182P. 2



### 4820 8 

# Correction s 

# /t.rt'W

Federal Register Vol

. 55 , No

. 223 Monday , November

19 , 199 0

Thi s sectio n o f th e FEDERA L REGISTE R contain s editoria l correction s o f previousl y publishe d Presidential , Rule , Propose d Rule , an d Notic e documents

. Thes e correction s ar e prepare d byth e Offic e o f th e Federa l Register

. Agencyprepare d correction s ar e issue d a s signe d document s an d appea ri n th e appropriat e documen t categorie s elsewher e i n th e issue

. DEPARTMEN TO F AGRICULTUR E Anima l an d Plan t Healt h Inspectio n Servic e 9 CF R Par t 30 1 [Docke t No . 90-114 ] RI N 0579-AA2 9 Citru s Canke r Correction I nrul e documen t

90-2135 1 beginnin g o npag e 3744 2 i nth e issu e of Tuesday , Septembe r 11,1990 , mak e th e followin g correction : O npag e 37450 , i nth e thir dcolumn , § 301.75-2(c ) shoul drea da s follows : §301.75- 2 [Corrected ] **** * (c ) Regulate darticle s move dinterstat e wit halimite dpermi t

t o a nare ao f

th e Unite dState s tha t

i s no t acommercia l citrus-producin g are ama y no t subsequentl y b e move dinterstat e int o an y commercia l citrus-producin g area . BILLIN G COD E 1505-01- 0 ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y 4 0 CF R Par t 6 0 IAD-FRL-3848-2 ] Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Ne w Stationar y Sources ; Tes t Method s i n Appendi x A an d Performanc e Specification s i n Appendi xB ; Technica l Amendmen t Correction I nrul e documen t

90-2449 8 beginnin g o npag e 4747 1 i n th e issu e o f Wednesday , Novembe r 14,1990 , mak e th e followin g correction : O n pag e 47473 , i nth e firs t column , i n th e fift hline , th e secon d"5A " shoul d rea d"5A°"

. BILLIN G COD E 1505-01- 0
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999<F1>
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1999<F1>
<CASH>                                          35,352
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  709,344
<ALLOWANCES>                                    92,765
<INVENTORY>                                    475,524
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,170,655
<PP&E>                                       1,821,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                 718,934
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,915,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          804,878
<BONDS>                                      1,116,422
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       319,937
<OTHER-SE>                                     301,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,915,053
<SALES>                                      4,424,160
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,424,160
<CGS>                                        3,785,745
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,785,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               552,193
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                53,566
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,943
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,279
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,079
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,079
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20<F3>
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY'S FISCAL YEAR ENDS ON THE SATURDAY CLOSEST TO DECEMBER 31. 
FISCAL YEAR 1998 ENDED JANUARY 2, 1999 AND INCLUDED 52 WEEKS. ALL QUARTERS 
INCLUDE 12 WEEKS, EXCEPT FOR THE THIRD QUARTER WHICH HAD 16 WEEKS.
<F2>IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE", THIS ITEM REFLECTS
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE.
<F3>IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE", THIS ITEM REFLECTS
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00093-CV 

IN RE VERNON WAYNE MOONEY, RELATOR 

 

OPINION ON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

 

April 16, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Pending before the court is an application for writ of mandamus filed by Vernon 

Wayne Mooney. Mooney requests us to “issue a Writ of Mandamus directed to: 

Honorable, Don R. Emerson, District Judge of the 320th District Court of Potter County, 

Texas. . . ordering or compelling said judge to schedule or set a trial date in cause 

number 68596-D, styled the State of Texas vs. Vernon Wayne Mooney." We deny the 

petition as moot.

The record at bar reflects that Mooney has been indicted for murder which has 

been pending since December 2, 2010. However, according to the mandamus 

application, the indictment was amended on February 24, 2014, to include three counts 

for 1st and 2nd degree Injury to an Elderly Person and for manslaughter. In his 
2

application Mooney represents that he has been incarcerated for five years and has 

made “six attempts, four of which were directly to the respondent, to assert his right to a 

speedy trial, and to alert the court and prosecutor that he desires a speedy trial, all of 

which have been routinely ignored.” Mooney contends that he received a copy of his 

indictment on April 4, 2011, and began a campaign to have counsel appointed and to 

have the matter set for trial. On August 15, 2013, Mooney was arraigned and counsel 

was appointed. Subsequently, the indictment was dismissed and relator was re-indicted 

with the aforementioned counts. According to the mandamus application, Mooney 

continued to assert his right to a speedy trial without assistance of counsel. 

Subsequently, counsel withdrew from representation, according to the application. 

Opportunity to respond to the application was afforded the trial court. Thereafter, 

the court received certified records from the district clerk of Potter County, Texas, and 

the 320th Judicial District. Those records, which include a copy of a judgment, disclose 

that Mooney pled guilty on Count II of the new indictment (Trial Court Cause No. 69596-

D), was sentenced on April 8, 2015, and was represented by counsel at that time. They

also reveal that the State dismissed Counts I and III. Because Mooney has received 

the relief he requested in his application for a writ of mandamus, we do not address the 

merits of the application. 

Consequently, we grant the motion for leave to file an application for a writ of 

mandamus and the application for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtis Brown, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.) rendered November 13, 1989, by which defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentenced to concurrent terms of 3 Vi to 7 years and 2 to 4 years on the robbery and one of the larceny counts, to run consecutively to a term of 2 to 4 years on the second larceny count, unanimously affirmed.

Jason Michael Rodriguez (the "complainant”) was mistakenly arrested on March 30, 1989 on a Texas bench warrant. *313The case was dismissed shortly after Rodriguez was arraigned, and the record was sealed. While Rodriguez was in custody, the defendant snatched a gold chain from Rodriguez’s neck and then threatened him. Rodriguez testified that the defendant also threatened another prisoner, Raphael Ortega, and took his watch.

The court properly ruled that the prosecutor could question the defendant as to a 1986 conviction for a "theft related offense”, and could question defendant, without restriction, as to a 1985 Yonkers City Court conviction for unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and a May 1989 conviction for assault in the third degree. The fact that the defendant committed crimes like the one he was being tried for does not give him the right to have inquiry precluded. *(Compare, People v Aiken,*162 AD2d 106.)

Defense counsel did not move to obtain the photographs which were part of the sealed record of Rodriguez’s arrest. In the absence of a motion by defense counsel below for some relief for a perceived *Brady*violation, the matter was not properly preserved for appellate review. *(People v Brunson,*166 AD2d 204, 205.) In any event, it is clear that since the record was sealed, the photographs were not in the possession of the People prior to the trial, thus the People had no way of knowing if the pictures were exculpatory or not *(People v Rodriguez,*155 AD2d 257, 259, *lv denied*75 NY2d 923). Accordingly, the exculpatory potential of the photographs was speculative. No *Brady*violation occurred *(see, People v Fappiano,*139 AD2d 524, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918).

Defendant’s argument that the court should have reviewed the arrest photographs of the complainant *in camera,*to determine if they were exculpatory has been considered and found to be meritless under the circumstances.

The unpreserved contention that the testimony of Court Officer Manzello impermissibly bolstered the complainant’s testimony has not been preserved for appellate review. In any event, Officer Manzello’s testimony at most inferentially bolstered the strong identification testimony of the complainant, and thus does not warrant reversal. *(People v Johnson,*57 NY2d 969.)

Defendant’s remaining arguments have been considered and found to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000016160
<NAME> EX27.EDG
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-03-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-03-2000
<CASH>                                           6,541
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                       305
<INVENTORY>                                     43,913
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,330
<PP&E>                                         237,098
<DEPRECIATION>                                  88,961
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 231,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,845
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           176
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   231,899
<SALES>                                        287,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               287,055
<CGS>                                          268,937
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  308,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (27,012)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,633)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,379)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,379)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.41)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the    Registration Statement on    Form S-8    (Numbers    333-119300,333-119299,333-96283,33-41314,33-41315,33-69844,    and    333-96285)    of The Cato Corporation of our report dated April 1, 2008    relating to the financial statements, the financial statement    schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over    financial reporting, which appears in this    Form 10-K. /s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP        Charlotte, North Carolina    April 1, 2008
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of American HomePatient, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen
L. Clanton, 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 to the best of my knowledge:

      (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.

This Certification is executed as of May 4, 2005.

                                                         /s/ Stephen L. Clanton
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Stephen L. Clanton
                                                         Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2016203EN.01005801.xml

| | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/58

---

ANNEX II

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 41 OF THIS TREATY

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 41 OF THIS TREATY

| 1. | Mining of uranium and thorium ore. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Mining of uranium and thorium ore.

| 2. | Concentration of such ores. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Concentration of such ores.

| 3. | Chemical processing and refining of uranium and thorium concentrates. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Chemical processing and refining of uranium and thorium concentrates.

| 4. | Preparation of nuclear fuels, in any form. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Preparation of nuclear fuels, in any form.

| 5. | Fabrication of nuclear fuel elements. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fabrication of nuclear fuel elements.

| 6. | Production of uranium hexafluoride. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Production of uranium hexafluoride.

| 7. | Production of enriched uranium. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Production of enriched uranium.

| 8. | Processing of irradiated fuels for the purpose of separating some or all of the elements contained therein. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Processing of irradiated fuels for the purpose of separating some or all of the elements contained therein.

| 9. | Production of reactor moderators. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Production of reactor moderators.

| 10. | Production of hafnium-free zirconium or compounds thereof. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Production of hafnium-free zirconium or compounds thereof.

| 11. | Nuclear reactors of all types and for all purposes. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Nuclear reactors of all types and for all purposes.

| 12. | Facilities for the industrial processing of radioactive waste, set up in conjunction with one or more of the facilities specified in this list. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Facilities for the industrial processing of radioactive waste, set up in conjunction with one or more of the facilities specified in this list.

| 13. | Semi industrial installations intended to prepare the way for the construction of plants involved in any of activities 3 to 10. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Semi industrial installations intended to prepare the way for the construction of plants involved in any of activities 3 to 10.

---