alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 574/2006

of 7 April 2006         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 April 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 April 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 7 April 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 750/2005 (OJ L 126, 19.5.2005, p. 12). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Saleem Roberts, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 812]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), rendered November 23, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly precluded the defense from presenting a witness who would purportedly testify that the defendant made a certain self-serving, exculpatory statement to him. “The general rule is that a party’s self-serving statement is inadmissible at trial when offered in his or her favor, and it may not be introduced either through the testimony of the party or through the testimony of a third person” *(People v Oliphant,*201 AD2d 590, 590-591 [1994]; *see People v Haddock,*79 AD3d 1148, 1149 [2010]; *People v Pearson,*28 AD3d 587 [2006]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the proffered statement was not evidence of his state of mind, but rather a factual assertion which constituted inadmissible hearsay *(see People v Haddock,*79 AD3d at 1149).

*1152The defendant’s contention that one of the police officers who participated in the arrest should not have been permitted to testify that other defendants, in different cases, had given the same “story” of temporary lawful possession is unpreserved for appellate review *(see generally*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Farfam,*34 AD3d 828, 829 [2006]; *People v Garcia,*294 AD2d 515 [2002]; *People v Finnigan,*229 AD2d 547, 548 [1996]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

The defendant’s remaining contention does not require reversal. Balkin, J.E, Eng, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             216
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,652)
<INVENTORY>                                     29,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,539
<PP&E>                                         157,504
<DEPRECIATION>                                (45,750)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 278,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,492
<BONDS>                                        180,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                    (64,275)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   278,657
<SALES>                                        263,962
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               263,962
<CGS>                                          230,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  256,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    79
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,246
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,667)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,971)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  5,143
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,828)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (5.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.05)


</TABLE>
# C_2020271EN.01003501.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 –Pavel v EUIPO — bugatti (B)

(Case T-114/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark B - Earlier international figurative mark b - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Misuse of power - Partial annulment)

(2020/C 271/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dan-Gabriel Pavel (Oradea, Romania) (represented by: E.-D. Nedelcu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M.L. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: bugatti GmbH (Herford, Germany) (represented by: U. Ulrich, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2018 (Joined Cases R 49/2018-1 and R 85/2018-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between bugatti and Mr Pavel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 December 2018 (Joined Cases R 49/2018-1 and R 85/2018-1) in so far as it concerns the goods ‘leather and imitations of leather; animal skins, hides’ in Class 18 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 December 2018 (Joined Cases R 49/2018-1 and R 85/2018-1) in so far as it concerns the goods ‘leather and imitations of leather; animal skins, hides’ in Class 18 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 1 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative 

to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relative to limiting the number of terms that 

a Member of Congress may serve. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 by the Congress: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•SJ 1 IS 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has served 6 terms as 

3 a Representative shall be eligible for election to the House 

4 of Representatives. For purposes of this section, the elec5 tion of a person to fill a vacancy in the House of Rep6 resentatives shall be included as 1 term in determining 

7 the number of terms that such person has served as a Rep8 resentative if the person fills the vacancy for more than 

9 1 year. 

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has served 2 terms as 

11 a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment to 

12 the Senate. For purposes of this section, the election or 

13 appointment of a person to fill a vacancy in the Senate 

14 shall be included as 1 term in determining the number 

15 of terms that such person has served as a Senator if the 

16 person fills the vacancy for more than 3 years. 

17 ‘‘SECTION 3. No term beginning before the date of 

18 the ratification of this article shall be taken into account 

19 in determining eligibility for election or appointment under 

20 this article.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99.2

                                Equity One, Inc.

                              Officer's Certificate

                          Annual Statement of Servicer

     Equity One ABS, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-2
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to the provisions of the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement for the above
captioned series (the "Agreement"),  the undersigned hereby certifies that he is
an officer of Equity One, Inc. (the "Servicer"), and does hereby further certify
that:

     1. A review of the activities of the Servicer  during the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2001 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under
his supervision; and

     2. To the best of his  knowledge,  based on such  review,  the Servicer has
fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under the Agreement  throughout  such fiscal
year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Servicer as of this 5th day of March, 2002.

                                        EQUITY ONE, INC.

                                        By: /s/ Dennis J. Lauria
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Dennis J. Lauria, Vice President
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 on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust II (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding II, L.P. for
the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marlene Debel, Regular
Trustee of the Trust, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II


                              By:  /s/ Marlene Debel
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Marlene Debel *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: May 12, 2006
_____________________

* Marlene Debel functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6471

GEORGE REYNOLD EVANS, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH MCQUEEN, Sheriff; CAPTAIN SMITH, Chief

Jailer; NURSE GREGG; NURSE PENNY; NEW HANOVER

COUNTY, NC; NEW HANOVER COUNTY HEALTH

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CA-97-55-5-BO)

Submitted: August 19, 1997 Decided: September 29, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Reynold Evans, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

George Reynold Evans, a North Carolina prisoner, appeals the

district court's orders denying his application to proceed without

prepayment of fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28

U.S.C.A. § 1915 (West Supp. 1997), and denying his motion for

reconsideration. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner

who has had three or more actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, may not proceed

without prepayment of fees unless the applicant is "under imminent

danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g) (West

Supp. 1997). Evans has had three actions dismissed as frivolous or

for failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed Evans v.

North Carolina, No. 84-1152-CRT (November 1, 1984), as frivolous;

the district court dismissed Evans v. Smith, No. 83-1294-CRT

(December 7, 1983), for failure to state a claim upon relief could

be granted; and the district court dismissed Evans v. Crooms, No.

81-876-HC (October 7, 1981), as frivolous. Additionally, we find

that Evans has not demonstrated that he is "under imminent danger

of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g) (West Supp.

1997).

We therefore affirm the district court's application to proceed without prepayment of fees and the district court's denial of

Evans motion for reconsideration. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g) (West

Supp. 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Namrod Construction Co., Inc., Respondent, v F.V.B. Contracting Corp., Defendant, and Fred Bai, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, defendant Bai appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated March 21, 1985, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint as against him.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed as against defendant Bai.

Plaintiff’s contention that the contract dated September 28, 1983 obligated the individual defendant Bai is without merit, as it is clear from that document that Bai executed it only in *557his capacity as an officer of the corporate defendant. There is, therefore, no basis for personal liability *(see, e.g., Gold v Royal Cigar Co.,*105 AD2d 831). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Flynn, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheldon Levy, J.), rendered on March 30, 1984, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to said court for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5). No opinion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Bloom, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 264 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 264

 Designating September 12, 2011, as ``National Day of Encouragement''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 13, 2011

    Mr. Pryor (for himself and Mr. Boozman) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating September 12, 2011, as ``National Day of Encouragement''.

Whereas negative images, stories, and influences in the day-to-day lives of the 
        people of the United States can detrimentally affect their emotional 
        well-being, interactions with others, and general demeanor;
Whereas a group of teenagers participating in a leadership forum at Harding 
        University in Searcy, Arkansas, identified a lack of encouragement as 
        one of the greatest problems facing young people today;
Whereas the youth of the United States need guidance, inspiration, and 
        reassurance to counteract this negativity and to develop the qualities 
        of character essential for future leadership in the United States;
Whereas a National Day of Encouragement would serve as a reminder to 
        counterbalance and overcome negative influences, and would also provide 
        much-needed encouragement and support to others;
Whereas, following the events of September 11, 2001, thousands of people made 
        sacrifices in order to bring help and healing to the victims and their 
        families, inspiring and encouraging the people of the United States; and
Whereas the renewed feelings of unity, hope, selflessness, and encouragement 
        that began on September 12, 2001, are the same feelings that the 
        National Day of Encouragement is meant to recapture and spread: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates September 12, 2011, as ``National Day of 
        Encouragement'';
            (2) acknowledges the importance of encouragement and 
        positive influences in the lives of all people; and
            (3) urges the people of the United States to encourage 
        others, whether through an act of service, a thoughtful letter, 
        or words of kindness and inspiration, and by that encouragement 
        to boost the morale of all people of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.2

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 on Form 10-Q of Bionutrics, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Karen J. Harwell, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/KAREN J. HARWELLKaren J. Harwell                       |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Controller and Chief Accounting OfficerSeptember 12, 2002

---

QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 11480]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary conservation and display in the exhibition “Lives of the Gods: Divinity in Maya Art” at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York; the Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary conservation and exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Matthew R. Lussenhop,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-15964 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P