alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016202EN.01012501.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/125 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/125

---

Article 171

(ex Article 155 TEC)

(ex Article 155 TEC)

1.   In order to achieve the objectives referred to in Article 170, the Union:

| — | shall establish a series of guidelines covering the objectives, priorities and broad lines of measures envisaged in the sphere of trans-European networks; these guidelines shall identify projects of common interest, |
| --- | --- |

—

shall establish a series of guidelines covering the objectives, priorities and broad lines of measures envisaged in the sphere of trans-European networks; these guidelines shall identify projects of common interest,

| — | shall implement any measures that may prove necessary to ensure the interoperability of the networks, in particular in the field of technical standardisation, |
| --- | --- |

—

shall implement any measures that may prove necessary to ensure the interoperability of the networks, in particular in the field of technical standardisation,

| — | may support projects of common interest supported by Member States, which are identified in the framework of the guidelines referred to in the first indent, particularly through feasibility studies, loan guarantees or interest-rate subsidies; the Union may also contribute, through the Cohesion Fund set up pursuant to Article 177, to the financing of specific projects in Member States in the area of transport infrastructure. |
| --- | --- |

—

may support projects of common interest supported by Member States, which are identified in the framework of the guidelines referred to in the first indent, particularly through feasibility studies, loan guarantees or interest-rate subsidies; the Union may also contribute, through the Cohesion Fund set up pursuant to Article 177, to the financing of specific projects in Member States in the area of transport infrastructure.

The Union's activities shall take into account the potential economic viability of the projects.

2.   Member States shall, in liaison with the Commission, coordinate among themselves the policies pursued at national level which may have a significant impact on the achievement of the objectives referred to in Article 170. The Commission may, in close cooperation with the Member State, take any useful initiative to promote such coordination.

3.   The Union may decide to cooperate with third countries to promote projects of mutual interest and to ensure the interoperability of networks.

---
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1472 

AN ACT 

To rename the Homestead National Monument of America 

near Beatrice, Nebraska, as the Homestead National 

Historical Park. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1472 EH

1 SECTION 1. HOMESTEAD NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first section of the Act of 

3 March 19, 1936 (16 U.S.C. 450u), is amended by striking 

4 ‘‘designated’’ and all that follows through the end and in5 serting ‘‘designated the ‘Homestead National Historical 

6 Park’.’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the unit of the National Park System known 

10 as ‘‘The Homestead National Monument of America’’ 

11 shall be considered to be a reference to the ‘‘Homestead 

12 National Historical Park’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 20, 

2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1472 

AN ACT 

To rename the Homestead National Monument of 

stead National Historical Park. America near Beatrice, Nebraska, as the Home-
Internet Marketing & Videography

JBS Media 1329 Hwy 395 N Ste 10-144, Gardnerville, NV 89410 775-544-3261

Drone Proposed Operations

The Plan

JBS Media is an off shoot development of Platinum Analytics and Distribution (dba Fast 

Company). Fast Company (and formerly Diamondlot.com) has been providing 

Photography and Data Internet syndication for 15 years to over 900 dealers nationwide. In 

2013 the service was expanded to videos of the entire inventory of the auto dealership. 

The program was so successful we decided to expand into Real Estate.

We at JBS Media (JB Services, LLC) are going to provide video services for Real Estate 

agents. This started off as walkthrough videos of the property. With the high demand and 

competitive field we want to offer the service of aerial views of the property with the use 

of drones. This would give the agents the ability to show the property inside and out by 

way of a video link. Real estate listings are the first contact that the buyer has with their 

future home and capturing the best visuals can be impactful to their decisions. So the 

most impact that can be made is through a complete and visual experience of the property.

This is where the drone comes into play. Being early in the stages of this technology we 

hope to bring a unique presence to the services we offer. Having a history of hobby R/C 

experience ranging from cars, boats, and helicopters it naturally came as a realistic service 

to provide for our customers. 

We would like to operate under all FAA guidelines and laws and provide a safe and secure 

service for our customers (and everyone else) in the area of the drone video production. 

We currently have a new webpage under construction jbsmedia.video

CEO Robert Fast

Vice President Joshua Ricketts

Chief Operations Manager Brian Ikehara
Exhibit 15


Goody's Family Clothing, Inc.
Knoxville, Tennessee

We have made a review, in accordance with standards  established by the American
Institute of Certified Public  Accountants,  of the unaudited  interim financial
information of Goody's Family  Clothing,  Inc. for the periods ended May 3, 1997
and May 4, 1996,  as indicated in our report dated May 19, 1997;  because we did
not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware  that our  report  referred  to above,  which is  included  in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 3, 1997, is incorporated
by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 33-51210,  33-68520,  333-00052 and
333-09595 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report,  pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the  Securities  Act of  1933,  is not  considered  a part  of the  Registration
Statement  prepared  or  certified  by an  accountant  or a report  prepared  or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
May 19, 1997
<PAGE>
Cause No. 428298 C} $4 WA
Mednty ddiier

STATE of TEXAS, § IN THE C

Appellant §
v. § AT LAW‘NO- 15
MANUEL CARDENAS, §

Appellee § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF APPEAL, CERTIFICATION, AND REQUEST FOR STAY

NOW COMES the State of Texas, by and through Nicholas “Nico” LaHood,
Criminal District Attorney of Bexar County, Texas, with the filing of this Notice of

Appeal and Request for Stay in the above styled criminal cause.

I. NOTICE OF APPEAL
Pursuant to Article 44.01(a)(1) and (a)(5) of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure, the State hereby appeals this Court’s order granting the defendant’s
Motion to Suppress Evidence and dismissing the information in the above-
numbered cause. The order granting the defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence
and dismissing the case was granted on April 14, 2015. The State’s Notice of

Appeal is due to be filed on or before May 4, 2015.

II. CERTIFICATION THAT THE APPEAL IS NOT TAKEN FOR PURPOSES OF DELAY
I, Nicholas “Nico” LaHood, Criminal District Attorney of Bexar County,
Texas, the prosecuting attorney in this case, hereby certify to this Court that the

appeal in the above styled and numbered cause is not taken for the purpose of


delay and that the issues to be presented and evidence suppressed are of substantial
importance to the case.
IM. REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT

Pursuant to Article 44.01(e) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the
State is entitled to a stay in the proceedings pending the disposition of an appeal
under Subsection (a) or (b) of Article 44.01. This appeal is taken pursuant to
article 44.01(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the State
respectfully requests that this court stay all proceedings in this matter pending
disposition of the State’s appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

Opt LE

Niefioias “Nico” LAHoop

£riminal District Attorney
Bexar County, Texas

101 West Nueva, Seventh Floor
San Antonio, Texas 78205
Voice: (210) 335-2342

Fax: (210) 335-2884

State Bar No. 24030360
Attorney for the State



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jennifer D. Rossmeier, Assistant Criminal District Attorney of Bexar
County, Texas, hereby certify that a true copy of the above and foregoing Notice of

Appeal, Certification, and Request for Stay is being delivered via mail to Robert A.

der” Cau,

\ Jenna D. ROSSMEIER
Assistant Criminal District Attorney
State Bar No. 24079247
101 West Nueva, Suite 708
San Antonio, Texas 78205
Phone: (210) 335-2734
Fax: (210) 335-2436
Email: jennifer.rossmeier@bexar.org
Attorney for the State

Valdez, attorney for Defendant/Appellee.

ce: ROBERT A. VALDEZ
Attorney at Law
State Bar No. 20428000
410 S. Main, Suite 203
San Antonio, Texas 78204
Voice: (210) 227-2401
Attorney for the Defendant/Appellee
#### COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION v. BELL et al.

No. 9224.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 5, 1939.

Chas. C. Crenshaw, Sp. Atty. for Commodity Credit Corporation, of Lubbock, Tex., for appellant.

Ellis Douthit and E. L. Harwell, both of Abilene, Tex., for appellees.

Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

In its decree approving the final report ' of the receiver, and discharging him, the district court allowed the receiver $5,000 for his services as such, and $2,000 for the services of his attorneys. The appellant, a Delaware corporation, appealed from that part of the decree making the allowance, claiming the fees to be excessive.

 The only question in the case relates to the reasonableness of the amounts awarded. It is well settled that such allowances are largely within the discretion of the district court, which has a fuller and more intimate knowledge of the nature and extent of the services rendered than an appellate court can possibly obtain. On the other hand, there is no more difficult and perplexing problem presented to the courts of original jurisdiction than the fixation of such amounts; and, while all reasonable presumptions should be indulged in favor of their correctness, when the entire facts are in the record and undisputed, this court should not shirk the responsibility of reviewing and revising the awards in • such cases.

This receivership involved 32,726 bales of cotton, stored in warehouses in Texas, upon which appellant had made loans to producers in varying amounts aggregating $1,135,000. If we look solely to the figures, and consider what would ordinarily be required, the fees in controversy are not unreasonable, but, as stated by the court below, the litigants lifted all of the labor and responsibility out of the hands of the receiver very soon after he was appointed, and left him with nothing to do except to make his report and claim his compensation.

*1002We do not undervalue the excellent manner in which the receiver handled this matter, nor the good advice given him by his attorneys upon the few occasions when advice was needed, but the simple fact is that the case was settled before either the receiver or his attorneys had earned anything like the amounts which they naturally expected to earn when the work was undertaken. It indisputably appears that fifteen days would cover all of the time that the receiver devoted to his duties. The time of his attorneys was materially less. We think the compensation of the receiver should be reduced to $2,500 and that of his attorneys to $1,000.

That part of the decree appealed from is reversed, the decree is amended so as to reduce the amounts as above stated, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 20, 2015

No. 04-15-00233-CV

Jeremiah MARTIN,

Appellant

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV01933

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On February 3, 2015, the justice court rendered a judgment in favor of appellee Federal 

National Mortgage Association in a forcible entry and detainer action. Appellant Jeremiah A. 

Martin filed a notice of appeal in the county court. The county court dismissed the appeal. On 

April 16, 2015, appellant filed a notice of appeal, seeking review in this court of the county 

court’s dismissal. 

On April 17, 2015, appellant filed an “Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining 

Order.” We have reviewed the motion and find it is just that, a request for a temporary 

restraining order, asking this court “to dispense with the issuance of a bond” and temporarily 

enjoin appellee from evicting appellant from his residence. Appellant includes additional 

statements — irreparable harm, success on merits — that establish the relief sought is a 

temporary restraining order as opposed to any other type of relief. This court does not issue 

temporary restraining orders. Our ability to suspend the enforcement of judgments pending an 

appeal in a civil case is governed by Rule 24 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which 

appellant did not invoke. 

Accordingly, after reviewing appellant’s motion, and the affidavit subsequently filed by 

his attorney, we DENY appellant’s “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.” We order the 

clerk of this court to serve a copy of this motion on all counsel. 
_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7400

GERALD DEAN DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAULA A. BREWSTER; JOYCE L. HUFF; EDGAR V. GUTHRO; TONY FISHER, Chief, Spartanburg Public Safety Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Columbia. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA04-1711-3-HFF) Submitted: February 8, 2006 Decided: February 16, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Dean Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donna Seegars Givens, WOODS & GIVENS, L.L.P., Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gerald Dean Davis, Jr. appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Davis’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Davis v. Brewster , No. CA-04- 1711-3-HFF (D.S.C. Aug. 19, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         102,112                  50,209
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,240,109               1,518,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    161,591                 257,005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,063,386               1,936,721
<PP&E>                                       1,842,844               1,819,811
<DEPRECIATION>                               (173,022)               (128,432)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,669,811               4,186,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      (1,346,762)             (1,548,987)
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        (200,000)                       0
<PREFERRED>                                   (75,418)                  75,418
<COMMON>                                       (1,512)                 (1,498)
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,083,170)             (1,039,817)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               (4,669,811)             (4,186,810)
<SALES>                                    (2,684,339)             (5,956,419)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (2,684,339)             (5,956,419)
<CGS>                                        2,586,572               5,791,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,586,572               5,791,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,316                  17,035
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,236                  27,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (43,575)                (48,004)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,447                  11,262
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,128)                (36,742)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,128)                (36,742)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19                    0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19                    0.22
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Rivera, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a *637judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered August 2, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction arose out of an undercover narcotics operation conducted by the Brooklyn South Narcotics force on November 4, 1987. At approximately 5:00 p.m., an undercover officer purchased two packets of cocaine from the defendant and the codefendant Jaime Lopez on the street in front of a bar. The transaction consisted simply of an exchange of the drug for cash. A few minutes later a second undercover officer conducted a second drug purchase from the defendant and the codefendant. The arresting officers recovered a brown paper bag near the feet of the defendant and the codefendant, which contained two additional plastic bags of cocaine. The prerecorded money was also recovered from the defendant’s pocket.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84). It is obvious from the verdict that the jury found the People’s witnesses credible, and found the defendant’s and the codefendant’s testimony that they were framed by the police not credible. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to consider them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see, People v Charleston,*56 NY2d 886; *People v Rawlings,*144 AD2d 500). Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      We have issued our report dated March 10, 2005, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements in the Annual Report of Camco Financial
Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. We hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements
of Camco Financial Corporation on Forms S-8, File No. 333-94113, effective
January 5, 2000 and File Nos. 333-90142, 333-90152, 333-90158 and 333-90166
effective June 10, 2002.

/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
March 15, 2005
Fiscal Year 2020

FGIS User Fee Accounts

Revenue Obligations Earnings / Loss Operating 

Reserve

U.S. Grain Standards Act

Inspection & Weighing $30,261,244 $35,797,593 -$5,536,349 $10,007,544

Official Agencies $751

$1,807,633 -$1,807,558 $1,725,742

Agricultural Marketing Act

Rice $4,000,311 $5,718,686 -$1,718,375 $7,591,059

Commodities $2,577,519 $2,548,214 $29,305 -$503,556

Fiscal Year 2020 Total $36,839,149 $45,872,126 -$9,032,977 $18,820,789

1Suspended the assessment of fees [7CFR800.71(a)(2)] for supervision of official inspection and weighing 

services performed by delegated States and/or designated agencies till 12/31/2020. Revenue reported is fee for 

designation amendments.