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 I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 2

LEGAL ACTS OF THE UNION, ADOPTION PROCEDURES AND OTHER PROVISIONS

SECTION 2

SECTION 2

PROCEDURES FOR THE ADOPTION OF ACTS AND OTHER PROVISIONS

Article 298

1.   In carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration.

2.   In compliance with the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment adopted on the basis of Article 336, the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish provisions to that end.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 4 THROUGH 7 OF THE COMPANY'S
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                         248,966
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,698
<INVENTORY>                                  1,823,127
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,053,370
<PP&E>                                       4,024,444
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,927,525)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,609,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,212,383
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,863
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,962,424
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,609,651
<SALES>                                      2,647,577
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,647,577
<CGS>                                          816,670
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,125,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,526
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,905
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (296,915)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (296,915)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (296,915)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1








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 Seen on Screen TV Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Antoine Jarjour, Chief Executive Officer 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated this 10th day of April, 2012.








ANTOINE JARJOURAntoine JarjourChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
August 19, 2008

28145

#### State v. Causey

Affirmed
August 28, 2008

28051, 28052

#### Lolohea v. State

Affirmed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Francis Harrison Pierpont Statue
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Franklin Simmons

Materials
    Marble

Year
    1910

Location
      
National Statuary Hall

This statue of Francis Harrison Pierpont was given to the National Statuary Hall Collection by West Virginia in 1910.

Born in Virginia on January 25, 1814, Pierpont was linked with its history for the rest of his life. He grew up in western Virginia, in what is today Marion County, West Virginia, graduated from Allegheny College, and was admitted to the bar in 1841. In 1848 he became the local attorney for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.

An active supporter of Lincoln, Pierpont became more involved in politics with the outbreak of the Civil War. When Virginia seceded, he organized a convention of Unionists, which declared that their elected officials had abandoned their posts and elected Pierpont provisional governor of Virginia. A legislature was set up, a new constitution was drafted, and representatives were seated in the Federal Congress. The state adopted the name West Virginia and was admitted into the Union in 1863. When a new governor was elected for West Virginia, Pierpont became governor of the "restored" state of Virginia, those counties occupied by Union troops. The capital, originally in Alexandria, moved in 1865 to Richmond, where Pierpont became governor of the whole state of Virginia.

After he was replaced by a military commander in 1868, Pierpont returned to his law practice in West Virginia. He served one term in the state legislature in 1870 and was collector of Internal Revenue under President Garfield. He died 18 years later in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on March 24, 1899. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
# Table of Contents

The contents of this workbook provide information derived from weekly cotton flow reports submitted to the Agricultural Marketing Service by individual warehouse operators through their electronic receipt providers.The weekly cotton flow reports do not include shipper information regarding loading orders for any specific week.  Therefore, they may not be indicative of actual performance against actual shipping demands.

# Percent of Warehouses

# Number of Warehouses

# Capacity Of Warehouses

# Bales Shipped

# Bales Not Picked Up

# Bales Over_Under Flow

# Total Inventory

# BMAS vs Effective Capacity

# Shipped Bales vs Effective Capa

# Shipped Bales vs BMAS
27837, 27838

#### State v. Russell

Affirmed
105 P.3d 666

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

February 9, 2005

24522

#### Jackson v. Kane

Vacated and Remanded
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-21930276   3-017-CV

IN RE 21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.InNnN rRrReEeE JaAmMeEsS EaArRlL CaArRrRoOlLlL JjJoO AaAnNnN GgGeEuUrRiInN PpPeEtTtTuUsS and Southern Bleacher Company	RrREeELlLAaATtTOoORrRsS

aAnNdD SsSoOuUtThHeErRnN BbBlLeEaAcChHeErR CcCoOmMpPaAnNyY

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's’ petition for writ of mandamus and emergency y motion forto satay   to reqmotion and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's’ petition for writ of mandamus and emergency fmmoitotion to satay are is denied.

	Relators shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL ABB::    WAKERLKER, HOLMAN and MCCOY	CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, LIVINGSTON ANDand HOLMAN,,  JJ.

DELIVERED: July 7, 2005 January 21, 2003August 1, 2005
28768

#### State v. McMillen

Affirmed
<PAGE>
 
                               EXHIBIT 11

          AMERICAN BUSINESS INFORMATION, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
    For the three and nine months ended September 30, 1996 and 1995
                (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                         Three Months Ended         Nine Months Ended
                                                                             September 30              September 30
                                                                        --------------------      --------------------
                                                                          1996         1995         1996         1995
                                                                          ----         ----         ----         ----
<S>                                                                     <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Average shares outstanding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        20,840       20,768       20,808       20,725
Net additional common equivalent shares . . . . . . . . . . . . .           187          639          187          469
                                                                       --------      -------      -------      -------
Average number of common and common equivalent
  shares outstanding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        21,027       21,407       20,995       21,194
                                                                       ========      =======      =======      =======

Net income for per share computation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      $(10,608)     $ 4,104      $(1,523)     $10,301
                                                                       ========      =======      =======      =======

Net income per average common and common
   equivalent share outstanding (1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     $  (0.50)     $  0.19      $ (0.07)     $  0.49
                                                                       ========      =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>
____________________

(1)  This calculation is submitted pursuant to Regulation S-K item
     601(b)(11) although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of
     APB Opinion No. 15 because it will result in dilution of less than
     3 percent.
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 11-3996

_______________

MICHAEL E. SILUK, JR.,

Appellant

v.

CATHERINE MERWIN, 

Director of Perry County Domestic Relations Section

________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Civil Action No. 1-11-cv-01654)

District Judge: Honorable Judge Christopher C. Conner

________________

Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge and CHAGARES, GARTH,

Circuit Judges

________________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

________________

At the direction of the Court, the opinion filed April 

10, 2015 is hereby amended.

Page 4, footnote 5:

We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s final order 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Although Siluk is appealing the 

order dismissing his complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), he has 

filed a motion to consolidate court fees which is currently 

pending before the Court, we only need to discuss the latter 

issue. The District Court thoroughly and carefully explained 

that Siluk’s claim against an officer of the Commonwealth of 
2

Pennsylvania is barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the 

United States Constitution.

Page 5, paragraph 2:

Siluk appealed and applied to proceed IFP before us. He also 

filed a motion to combine payment of his filing fees which 

was referred to the merits panel.

An amended judgment will be issued.

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Date: April 21, 2015
**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTEREDACCOUNTANTS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the followingRegistration Statements of Nexen Inc.:

 

·                  Registration Statement No.’s033-26582, 033-34467, 033-43426, 033-66538, 033-81334, 333-05494, 333-07344,333-09286, 333-13574, 333-118019 and 333-119276 on Form S-8;

 

·                  Registration Statement No.’s333-09288, 333-10646, 333-84786, 333-142652 and 333-142670 on Form F-3;and

 

·                  Registration Statement No.’s 333-128510and 333-143380 on Form F-10.

 

of our reports dated February 11, 2009, relating to the financialstatements of Nexen Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion on thefinancial statements and includes a separate report on Canada-United States ofAmerica reporting difference) and the effectiveness of Nexen Inc.’s internalcontrol over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Nexen Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 
| /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP                |
|----------------------------------------------|
| Independent Registered Chartered Accountants |
| Calgary, Canada                              |
|                                         |
| February 20, 2009                       |

 

----
##### 



(i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Partnership.
  By
    /s/ Dennis J. TietzDennis J. Tietz, President and Chief Executive 
Officer of Cronos Capital Corp.,
 General Partner of the Partnership/s/ John KallasJohn Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., General Partner of the Partnership A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other than as
required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be filed with the Commission or subject to
the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
#### Dohmen-Ramirez v. Freis

25473

10/14/2005

Affirmed in part & reversed in part
#### John D. Kramme et al., Appellants, v Adolph Brettler, Respondent.

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated December 22, 1989, which denied their motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A motion to restore an action to the trial calendar must be supported by a proper certificate of readiness and by affidavits showing an excuse for the delay in prosecution and demonstrating the merits of the action *(see,*22 NYCRR 202.21 [f]; *Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen & Co.,*60 NY2d 693; *Balducci v Jason,*133 AD2d 436; *Baumgartner v Foodarama Supermarkets,*86 AD2d 590).

It was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to demonstrate that their action was meritorious through submission of an evidentiary affidavit of a person competent to attest thereto *(see, Wulster v Rubinstein,*126 AD2d 545). The two affidavits submitted by the plaintiffs’ doctors stated that the failure to perform a voiding cystourethrogram was the omission constituting the negligence claimed. This would have been sufficient but for the defendant’s submission of the hospital records showing that this procedure was performed. As entries made in a hospital record relevant to diagnosis and treatment qualify for admission as prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein under the statutory business records rule *(see,*CPLR 4518 [c]; 2306; *Wilson v Bodian,*130 AD2d 221, 229), the affidavits of the plaintiffs’ physicians fail to set forth a meritorious cause of action concerning the alleged malpractice of the defendant. As such, we find that the Supreme Court properly declined to restore the case to the trial calendar. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
1 

Filed 4/16/15 P. v. Little CA3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

(Butte) 

---- 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ANDREW WESLEY LITTLE, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

C075883 

(Super. Ct. No. CM038519) 

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). 

Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment. 

 We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of 

the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 On April 20, 2013, defendant Andrew Wesley Little approached his live-in 

girlfriend in a park, pushed her off her bicycle, and punched and slapped her while she 

was on the ground. When he started to strangle her, unknown bystanders intervened, 
2 

pulling him off the victim. The victim suffered cuts on her hands, red marks on her neck, 

and bruising behind her ear and on her arm. 

 Defendant entered a negotiated no contest plea to corporal injury to a cohabitant 

(Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 1) and assault by means of force likely to produce 

great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 2) in exchange for no state 

prison at the outset. The court granted probation subject to certain terms and conditions 

including abstention from alcohol. 

 Defendant admitted that he violated probation by testing positive for alcohol. He 

was reinstated on probation subject to a residential substance abuse treatment program to 

which he was transported upon his release from jail. 

 Thereafter, defendant admitted that he violated probation by failing to complete 

the treatment program. The court revoked probation. 

 The court declined to reinstate probation and sentenced defendant to state prison 

for the upper term of four years on count 1. The court stayed sentence on count 2 

pursuant to Penal Code section 654. 

WENDE REVIEW 

 We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 

436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 

30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we 

received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the 

entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable 

to defendant. 
3 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 MURRAY , J. 

We concur: 

 RAYE , P. J. 

 HULL , J.
srYvjDear Sirs ( John Bailey, Jim R. Wright, M. Wilson);

Re: Trial Court Case #1235745D / Case#ll-13-00052-CR

This is notification and arequest that the time for the filing ofaPetition

for Discretionary Review be extended due to me not receiving

notification to file the appeal on 03/24/15 and time lag to write to the

appeal attorney via TDCJ mail system.

I am providing acopy ofthe Certified Correspondence Received

statement I signed at TDCJ upon receiving the decision/information. I

have emailed and mailed arequest to Abe Factor, Attorney to file a

PDR, however due to late notice, mail system, and time period Iwill

need an extended date for the filing ofthePDR.

Respectfully,

Jimmy Billingsley

#1830528 TDCJ#

M>R 20 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk
To:

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

•CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION.

e

Kl-Ot>

All Concerned Pate: T ^StAf 3--JY-&-

From: MaUroom

Certified Correspondence/

Subject: Package Received

On (date) !>-$$-IlT

TDCJ number 13305*2$

certified/registered/insured #

Offender fiilli^h J*<'rr\«r &on&fj/

._ received alettenpacjeage that was

OR

shipped by Fed-E^UPSWJg^pthcr# 7<J/3 /7/Q POO QC?f2 }3.?P

From: fa ths £ ft, «ffa tf nJA*r**ff aAJ.*u,)

Contents ofpackage:

*>~'.%<l -l4*

Date

(Rev. 09/12

~ 21
lb ttifo* t+flkr/kry**,; J-JM?

Offender toiU*pl« -T7^m &ssto«S£: /none

MC /dp/w'/fir*** '-'GcArS/%*.<£# */fr~yf

S"*/4 At>**rt- Frtsjif
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6993

BARRY LAW,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LINDA LILLY, City Insurance (Division of

Risk); DAVID TORBORG, Insurance Coordination,

City of Danville; MAJOR COLEMAN, Danville

Jail; SERGEANT CHILDRESS, Danville Jail,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-97-449-R)

Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 30, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry Law, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion, dismissing the action because it

failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 1997), and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Law v. Lilly, No. CA-97-449-R (W.D. Va. July 15, 1997). 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