alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 288/9 se

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 288 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 479 September 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 288

English edition

Legislation

Volume 479 September 2004

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1574/2004 of 8 September 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1575/2004 of 8 September 2004 repealing Regulations (EC) No 717/96, (EC) No 1484/96, (EC) No 1508/96, (EC) No 164/97, (EC) No 299/97 and (EC) No 1112/97 related to exceptional support measures for the beef market in Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom | 3 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1576/2004 of 7 September 2004 establishing unit values for the determination of the customs value of certain perishable goods | 4 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1577/2004 of 8 September 2004 amending the representative prices and additional duties for the import of certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 1210/2004 for the 2004/2005 marketing year | 10 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1574/2004 of 8 September 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1575/2004 of 8 September 2004 repealing Regulations (EC) No 717/96, (EC) No 1484/96, (EC) No 1508/96, (EC) No 164/97, (EC) No 299/97 and (EC) No 1112/97 related to exceptional support measures for the beef market in Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom

3

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1576/2004 of 7 September 2004 establishing unit values for the determination of the customs value of certain perishable goods

4

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1577/2004 of 8 September 2004 amending the representative prices and additional duties for the import of certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 1210/2004 for the 2004/2005 marketing year

10

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

**Section 1350Certification**

 

In connection with this quarterly report of ML Systematic MomentumFuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(this “Report”), I, Justin C. Ferri, Chief Executive Officer, Presidentand Manager of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the manager of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantof the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  November 12, 2010 |                                            |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                          |                                            |   |
| By:                           | /s/JUSTIN C. FERRI                              |   |
|                          | Justin  C. Ferri                                |   |
|                          | Chief  Executive Officer, President and Manager |   |
|                          | (Principal  Executive Officer)                  |   |

 

----
# Official Journal C 266/13 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 266 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6313 August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 266

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6313 August 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2020/C 266/01 | Financial activity report 2019 – Section II – European Council and Council | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2020/C 266/01

Financial activity report 2019 – Section II – European Council and Council

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**Exhibit 12.1****COLONIAL REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP****Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**                   **For the three-month period**  **For the six-month period**   **ended June 30,**  **ended June 30,** *(all dollar amounts in thousands)* **2007**  **2006**  **2007**  **2006** **Earnings:**                Pre-tax income (loss) before adjustment for minority interest inconsolidated subsidiaries or income, loss from equity investees,extraordinary gain or loss, or gains on sale of properties $(15,503) $362  $(18,104) $(3,961)Amortization of interest capitalized  600   600   1,250   1,200 Interest capitalized  (7,347)  (3,796)  (13,592)  (6,690)Distributed income of equity investees  2,918   2,877   5,253   4,792 Fixed charges  36,430   36,559   72,236   73,389                           Total earnings $17,098  $36,602  $47,043  $68,730                           **Fixed Charges:**                Interest expense $26,573  $31,341  $54,483  $63,748 Capitalized interest  7,347   3,796   13,592   6,690 Debt costs amortization  2,510   1,422   4,161   2,951                           Total Fixed Charges $36,430  $36,559  $72,236  $73,389                           **Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**  (a)  1.0   (a)  (a)          a) *For the three months ended June 30, 2007, theaggregate amount of fixed charges exceeded ourearnings by approximately $19.3 million, which is theamount of additional earnings that would have beenrequired to achieve a ratio of earnings to fixedcharges of 1.0x for such period. For the six monthsended June 30, 2007 and 2006, the aggregate amount offixed charges exceeded our earnings by approximately$25.2 million and $4.7 million, respectively, whichis the amount of additional earnings that would havebeen required to achieve a ratio of earnings to fixedcharges of 1.0x for such period. The deficiency ofthe ratio of earnings to fixed charges for the threemonths ended June 30, 2007 and the six months endedJune 30, 2007 and 2006 is primarily due to theclassification of operations for assets held for saleand sold as discontinued operations.*The ratios of earnings to fixed charges were computed by dividing earnings byfixed charges. For this purpose, earnings consist of pre-tax income fromcontinuing operations before adjustment for minority interest in consolidatedsubsidiaries or income or loss from equity investees, gains on sale ofproperties, distributed income of equity investees, fixed charges andamortization of capitalized interest excluding interest costs capitalized.Fixed charges consist of interest expense (including interest costscapitalized) and amortization of debt issuance costs.
41
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 23, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-00275-CR

TOREY TERRELL BANKS, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 264th District Court 

Bell County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 67505 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant Torey Terrell Banks appeals the trial court’s order adjudicating him 

guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Tex. Health & 

Safety Code Ann. § 481.112 (West 2017). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a 

brief in which he concludes the appeal isfrivolous and without merit. The brief meets 

the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. 
2

App. 1978). 

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of his right to inspect the appellate record and file a pro se response to the brief. See 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more 

than 60 days have passed, and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the 

record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief when 

we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 

178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and Brown 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### WRIGHT v. STATE.

No. 15504.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 25, 1933.

C. P. Chastain, of Hamlin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is burglary of a private residence; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The caption fails to show the date of adjournment of the trial court. Under the decisions the appeal must he dismissed. Howie v. State, 119 Tex. Cr. R. 17, 43 S.W.(2d) 594.

Appellant is granted fifteen days from this date in ■ which to perfect' the record.

The appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
#### BUCKNER v. STATE.

No. 19008.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 5, 1937.

R. H. Good, of Cooper, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Burglary is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The indictment appears regular. The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### LONG v. STATE.

No. 18161.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 8, 1936.

Gray Browne, of Abilene, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for rape; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

The record is here without any statement of facts or bills of exception. All matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

MORROW, P. J., absent.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3239 

To provide enhanced security at Armed Forces recruitment centers through 

the installation of reinforced bullet-proof glass and entry doors. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2015 

Mr. EMMER of Minnesota (for himself, Mr. KLINE, and Mr. FORTENBERRY) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide enhanced security at Armed Forces recruitment 

centers through the installation of reinforced bullet-proof 

glass and entry doors. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Armed Forces Career 

5 Center Protection Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3239 IH

1 SEC. 2. INSTALLATION OF REINFORCED BULLET-PROOF 

2 GLASS AND ENTRY DOORS AT ARMED 

3 FORCES RECRUITMENT CENTERS. 

4 The Secretary of each of the military departments, 

5 and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast 

6 Guard is operating, shall provide for the installation of 

7 reinforced bullet-proof glass and entry doors at Armed 

8 Forces recruitment centers, including facilities leased for 

9 use as recruitment centers, under the jurisdiction of the 

10 Secretary as an additional security measure to protect 

11 members of the Armed Forces serving as recruiters and 

12 potential recruits and other individuals visiting recruit13 ment centers. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Cleveland, 

 

Thank you for sending us the Pio Pico Energy Center Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit. 

 

I’ve reviewed my initial project notes and based on the emission rates and distances from the USFS Class I areas, the 

USDA Forest Service feels that no adverse impacts to air quality related values (AQRV) at these Forest Service 

Wilderness areas will occur. Should the emissions or nature of the project change significantly, please contact us so 

that we may re-evaluate the project. 

 

 

Thank you for keeping us informed. 

 

Mike Mc Corison 

Air Resource Specialist 

Angeles National Forest 

office 626-574-5286 

cell 626-437-0624 

 

This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any 

unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate 

the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message 

in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately. 

Pio Pico Energy PSD 

McCorison, Mike -FS 

to: 

Cleveland Holladay 

04/24/2012 10:51 AM 

Cc: 

"Silva, Gloria -FS", "Delgado, Arturo -FS", "Grant, Sharon -FS", "Nick, Andrea -FS" 

Hide Details 

From: "McCorison, Mike -FS" <mmccorison@fs.fed.us>

To: Cleveland Holladay/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: "Silva, Gloria -FS" <gsilva@fs.fed.us>, "Delgado, Arturo -FS" <adelgado@fs.fed.us>, 

"Grant, Sharon -FS" <sgrant@fs.fed.us>, "Nick, Andrea -FS" <anick@fs.fed.us>

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\chollada\Local Settings\Temp\notesDF63F8\~web7888.htm 6/7/2012
**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 Annual Report (the “Report”) ofPowell Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for theyear ended October 31, 2005, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Thomas W.Powell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 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 the Report fairly    represents, in all material respects, the financial condition    and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Thomas W. Powell       Thomas W. Powell     President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: January 17, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   7-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                          51,759
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,561)
<INVENTORY>                                    268,550
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               387,359
<PP&E>                                         243,490
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,459
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,020,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          240,931
<BONDS>                                        308,215
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           201
<OTHER-SE>                                     363,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,020,457
<SALES>                                      1,448,629
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,477,219
<CGS>                                        1,124,755
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,124,755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (55,153)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,940)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (60,093)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,093)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7633

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RYAN LAMAR HOLLAND , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder , Chief District Judge. ( 1:10

- cr - 00445

- TDS

- 1; 1:17

- cv - 01007

- TDS

- LPA )

Submitted : April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Ryan Lamar Holland, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ryan Lamar Holland seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appe alability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable juris ts would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedura l grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Holland has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
## Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of J.W. and K.W., Children

No. 06

- 23

- 00063

- CV Appeal from the 285th District Court of

Bexar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2017

- CI

10284 ). Panel consists of Chief Justice

St evens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin.

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief

Justice Stevens

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss th e appeal.

We further order that the appellant pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED M ARCH 12, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT TO THE

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD

:

:

:

:

NO. 799

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2019, the Honorable Renée Cohn Jubelirer, 

Centre County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Judicial Conduct Board for a term 

of four years, commencing August 31, 2019.

Justice Dougherty did not participate in this matter.
#### Charles H. McGinn, Individually and as Guardian ad Litem of Gregory C. McGinn, an Infant, Appellant, *v.*Slattery Rock Corp., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 23, 1958.

*483
      *E. Gerard Ryan*for appellant.

*Thomas Rattigan*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Although the record indicates that the fracture suffered by the infant plaintiff was not very painful and that it healed without complications the award in the sum of $250 is deemed inadequate. The injury required a closed reduction operation under anaesthesia followed by a plaster cast on the arm extending from the knuckles to the elbow which the infant wore for two and a half weeks. The plaster cast was replaced by a fabric type cast cover for six weeks.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs, unless plaintiff and defendant, within 10 days after service of a copy of the order entered hereon, stipulate to modify the judgment so as to increase the infant’s recovery to $750, in which event judgment as modified affirmed, without costs.

Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
Order entered December 22, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01493-CV

MICHAEL GAY COOK, Appellant

V.

CAROLINE D. COOK, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CI15-070

ORDER

Before Justices Lang, Fillmore and Brown

Before the Court is Appellant’s December 22, 2015 Application for Restraining Order in 

which appellant requests that the Court prohibit appellee from enforcing the trial court’s writ of 

possession for the property that is the subject of this appeal. On December 10, 2015, appellant 

filed a motion in this Court to reduce supersedeas bond contending that the trial court had set the 

supersedeas bond at $1800, an amount he could not pay and that would cause him substantial 

economic harm. Because the clerk’s record filed in the appeal did not contain an order setting 

the amount of supersedeas bond, on December 14, 2015, we ordered the Rockwall County Clerk 

to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a copy of the order setting supersedeas bond or 

written verification that such an order could not be located. On December 15, 2015, the 
Rockwall County Clerk responded that the clerk’s office could not locate an order from the trial 

court setting a supersedeas bond. By letter dated December 21, 2015, the official court reporter 

of the Rockwall County Court at Law advised the Court that there was no hearing setting a 

supersedeas bond in the case and that it was her understanding that no motion has been filed 

requesting the setting of a supersedeas bond. Appellant also has not included a copy of any order 

setting the supersedeas bond in support of either his motion to reduce supersedeas bond or his 

application for temporary restraining order.

Under the Texas Property Code, the judgment of the county court granting a writ of 

possession may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of 

the signing of the trial court’s judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in the amount set 

by the county court. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (West 2014); TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.13. The 

record before the Court does not reflect that appellant has filed a supersedeas bond in the amount 

determined by the county court. Accordingly, we lack the authority to grant the relief requested. 

We DENY appellant’s application for temporary restraining order.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

JUSTICE