alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 187/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.187.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 187 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5218 July 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.187.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 187

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5218 July 2009

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 629/2009 of 17 July 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 630/2009 of 17 July 2009 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 945/2008 for the 2008/2009 marketing year | 3 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Regulation (EC) No 629/2009 of 17 July 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

Commission Regulation (EC) No 630/2009 of 17 July 2009 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 945/2008 for the 2008/2009 marketing year

3

| | | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ L 319, 5.12.2007) | 5 |

Corrigenda

*

Corrigendum to Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ L 319, 5.12.2007)

OJ L 319, 5.12.2007

5

| 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 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Bryan M. Lemley, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control 

over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 10, 2005 

 

/s/ Bryan M. Lemley

Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary,

Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Excell J. Marks, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 712]

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch, J.), rendered May 17, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Present — Scudder, PJ., Smith, Fahey and Sconiers, JJ.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Southwest Watershed Research Center: Tucson, AZ
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About SWRCSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Tucson, Arizona SWRC Docs





- Research Overview
- Most Important Manuals/Reports/Bulletins from the SWRC
- Science Results
- Experimental Watersheds

Science Results (Winter 2013)headline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
**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 of Purchase Point Media, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Steven A.
      Kempenich, Chief Executive Officer of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
      adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/ Steven
      A. Kempenich


Steven
      A. Kempenich


Chief
      Executive Officer


October
      15,
      2007
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1763/2006

of 30 November 2006         

fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 15(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The corrective amount referred to in Article 1(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 which is applicable to export refunds fixed in advance except for malt shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 December 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 November 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 30 November 2006 fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          88,070
<SECURITIES>                                    65,703
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,408
<ALLOWANCES>                                       420
<INVENTORY>                                      9,221
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               216,419
<PP&E>                                          22,322
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,721
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 302,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,439
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                     242,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   302,211
<SALES>                                        141,009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,009
<CGS>                                           64,180
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   280
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,382
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,378
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,004
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,004
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          64,114
<SECURITIES>                                    77,175
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,392
<ALLOWANCES>                                       587
<INVENTORY>                                      8,718
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               180,841
<PP&E>                                          17,352
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 269,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,935
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                     229,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   269,057
<SALES>                                         60,824
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,824
<CGS>                                           28,102
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    30
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,240
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,433)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,673
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,673
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RUSSELL W. JOLLIFFE SR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 27 WM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8 th day of September , 2022, the Petition for Specialized Review is

DENIED.
No. 07-15-00429-CV

In re Reidie James Jackson, Relator §

§

§

§

Original Proceeding

December 11, 2015

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 11, 2015, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 

o O o

FILE COPY
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

 
                            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Board of Directors
PathoGenesis Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-05095, 333-45571, 333-61183 and 333-63679) on Form S-8 of PathoGenesis
Corporation of our reports dated January 25, 1999, except as to note 11 which is
as of March 29, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
PathoGenesis Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1998, and the consolidated financial statement schedule for the year ended
December 31, 1998, which reports appear in the December 31, 1998 annual report
on Form 10-K of Pathogenesis Corporation.

                                      
                                              KPMG LLP


Seattle, Washington
March 30, 1999
(June 18, 1985)

#### David J. E. Silber, Respondent, v Bena Silber, Appellant.

— In a divorce action, the defendant wife appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Burchell, J.), dated February 24, 1984, which denied her discovery of the names of the individual clients of plaintiff’s law firm, and (2) as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court (Gurahian, J.), dated January 31,1985, as granted that branch of plaintiff’s motion which was for a protective order denying defendant’s request for an examination before trial of the accountant and bookkeeper of his law firm.

Order dated February 24, 1984, affirmed and order dated January 31, 1985, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with separate bills of costs.

Special Term (Gurahian, J.), properly granted that branch of the plaintiff husband’s motion which was for a protective order with respect to defendant’s notice to depose two additional witnesses. Defendant’s conduct throughout discovery has been vexatious and dilatory. By order dated November 28, 1983, Justice Burchell directed the defendant to complete her pretrial discovery within 60 days of service of said order. Despite that order she served a notice of discovery and inspection on May 18, 1984, consisting of 26 items. The plaintiff moved for an order of protection. Although Justice Donovan, in the interest of expediting the trial of this action, ordered the plaintiff to produce some of the items demanded, he noted that the demand was untimely in light of Justice Burchell’s order. In November, 1984, once again in blatant disregard of previous court orders, defendant served notices to depose the accountant and bookkeeper of plaintiff’s law firm. Under the circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion for Special Term to have granted a protective order so as to deny the defendant’s request for an examination of the people in question.

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, where defense counsel has been dilatory in seeking disclosure and initially *890stated that he was not seeking the names of the clients of the plaintff’s law firm, we find no abuse of discretion in Justice Burchell’s denial of the defendant’s request for discovery of the names.

Furthermore, the defendant’s appendix did not provide this court with an appropriate basis upon which to consider the issues. However, the plaintiff did provide the court with a proper appendix. Accordingly, we have awarded him separate bills of costs. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
#### Dina Kevra et al., Respondents, v Mikhail Vladagin et al., Appellants.

[949 NYS2d 64]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme *806Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered February 16, 2012, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action is granted.

The plaintiffs’ decedent died as a result of a one-car accident wherein the vehicle in which he was traveling flipped onto its side and its roof then struck a tree. The accident took place shortly after 8 p.m. on September 7, 2008, and, according to a New York State Police Incident Report, “the Assistant Rockland County Medical Examiner confirmed the official time of death as [9:20 p.m.].” At the time of the impact, the decedent was seated in the rear passenger compartment behind the driver. The two other occupants of the vehicle, the driver and the front seat passenger, survived the crash. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering.

On a motion for summary judgment, the defendants bear the initial burden of showing that the decedent did not suffer conscious pain and suffering (see *Phiri v Joseph,*32 AD3d 922 [2006]; *Schild v Kingsley,*5 AD3d 103, 104 [2004]; *Massey v New York City Hous. Auth.,*230 AD2d 601, 602 [1996]). Here, the defendants satisfied their initial burden. In particular, they submitted evidence that the decedent did not make any sound or movement, and that he appeared not to be breathing, during the approximately one hour in between the occurrence of the accident and the official time of death.

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “Without legally sufficient proof of consciousness following an accident, a claim for conscious pain and suffering must be dismissed” *(Cummins v County of Onondaga,*84 NY2d 322, 325 [1994]). Mere conjecture, surmise, or speculation is insufficient to sustain a cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering *(id.).*Furthermore, there was no evidence that the decedent experienced “preimpact terror” *(see Anderson v Rowe,*73 AD2d 1030, 1031 [1980]; *Carlson v Porter,*53 AD3d 1129 [2008]; *cf. Lang v Bouju,*245 AD2d 1000, 1001 [1997]). Any finding that the decedent perceived grave injury or death, so as to justify making an award for “preimpact terror,” would be based on impermissible speculation *(Phiri v Joseph,*32 AD3d at 923).

*807Consequently, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering. Dillon, J.P., Eng, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### Fay Hill, Appellant, v Emmanuel K. Achiah et al., Respondents.

[943 NYS2d 885] —

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell Danziger, J.), entered December 27, 2011, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff pedestrian was struck by defendants’ vehicle as she crossed the street, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment in plaintiffs favor was properly denied since the conflicting accounts of plaintiff and defendant driver raise triable issues of fact as to how the accident occurred *(see Negron v Garcia,*85 AD3d 513 [2011]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.