alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 257/20 S

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 257 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4920 September 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 257

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4920 September 2006

---

| Contents | | II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Commission |
| | * | Commission Decision of 7 May 2004 on State Aid which Italy (Sicily) is planning for the agricultural sector
  (notified under document number C(2004) 1633) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Decision of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom
  (notified under document number C(2004) 3060)


   (1) | 11 |

Contents

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

page

Commission

*

Commission Decision of 7 May 2004 on State Aid which Italy (Sicily) is planning for the agricultural sector
  (notified under document number C(2004) 1633)

(notified under document number C(2004) 1633)

1

*

Commission Decision of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom
  (notified under document number C(2004) 3060)


   (1)

(notified under document number C(2004) 3060)

11

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| 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.
Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 35 Filed: 04/17/03 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:159

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 35 Filed: 04/17/03 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:160
Case: 1:03-cr-00933 Document #: 17  Filed: 03/11/04 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:26

Case: 1:03-cr-00933 Document #: 17  Filed: 03/11/04 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:27
Case: 1:01-cv-02362 Document #: 102 Filed: 01/03/02 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:129

Case: 1:01-cv-02362 Document #: 102 Filed: 01/03/02 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:130

Case: 1:01-cv-02362 Document #: 102 Filed: 01/03/02 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:131
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 Emeritus Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"), I, Daniel R. Baty,
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:


1.  The  Annual  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
    15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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




                                            /s/    Daniel  R.  Baty
                                            -----------------------
                                            Daniel  R.  Baty
                                            Chief  Executive  Officer
                                            March  29,  2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          18,730
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,989
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,719
<PP&E>                                          12,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,400,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,891,875
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,850
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,810,943)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,400,182
<SALES>                                         55,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,284
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,516,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,599,331)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,599,331)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,599,331)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Daniel Knutson, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Land O’Lakes, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 registrant’s internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors:     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: May 15, 2006      By: /s/ Daniel Knutson     Daniel Knutson    Senior Vice President and    Chief Financial Officer
(January 30, 1986)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Morgan, Appellant.

— Main, J. P.,

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (Scheinman, J.), rendered April 12, 1983, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, burglary in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, burglary in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. He appealed to this court and, in our prior decision (105 AD2d 554), we held that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation were improper and mandated a new trial for defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed this court’s decision (66 NY2d 255), concluding that the prosecutor’s comments constituted harmless error and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals remitted the matter to this court so that we might now examine those arguments advanced by defendant that we did not previously consider.

We first examine defendant’s contention that the People did not prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We must, of course, view the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Kennedy,*47 NY2d 196, 203). In so doing, we find ample basis in the record to support the jury’s verdict. The People clearly demonstrated at trial that defendant and another, Kevin Postell, were in the vicinity of and did in fact enter the victim’s apartment during the time in question. Additionally, a police investigation revealed that Postell had been seen in possession of a purple pouch containing coins that had been taken from the victim’s apartment. All of this, coupled with certain incriminating statements made by defendant and the testimony of the victim, provide overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

Defendant next argues that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial by the prosecution’s examination of one of its witnesses and by a prejudicial comment allegedly made by a court attendant. In this regard, we note only that County Court took immediate curative action which, in our view, fully protected defendant’s rights *(see, People v Burgh,*89 AD2d 672; *People v Patterson,*83 AD2d 691, 692).

Judgment affirmed. Main, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1248

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel SUMMER BREEZE.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 3, 1997

Mrs. MURRAY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

SUMMER BREEZE.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

4 Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

5 Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of

6 June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App.

7 289), and sections 12106 through 12108 of title 46, Unit8 ed States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue
2

•S 1248 IS

1 a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorse2 ment for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

3 SUMMER BREEZE, United States official number

4 552808.

Æ
(89 Hun, 141.)

#### GRIFFITH v. STATEN ISLAND R. T. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

July 26, 1895.)

Insufficiency of Evidence—Right to Dismissal—Waiver

In an action against a railroad for personal injuries, defendant, by failing at the close of the case to move for a dismissal, or for the direction of a verdict in its favor, concedes that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of the case to the jury, though it moved for a dismissal at the close of plaintiff’s case.

Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.

Action by Philadelphia Griffith against the Staten Island Rapid-Transit Railroad Company to recover damages for personal injuries. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $500 and costs, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

Tracy, Boardman & Platt, for appellant.

Grout, De Fere & Mayer, for respondent.

PRATT, J.

The only points made by appellant relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to prove freedom from negligence by plaintiff, and' the fact of negligence by itself. These points ari^e upon appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint when plaintiff rested, and the motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. There was no motion to dismiss at the close of the case, nor was there any request for a direction. If plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient on the question of her own or defendant’s negligence, the point is not available, provided the case on all the evidence was for the jury. It seems to have been regarded by defendant. Its failure to move to dismiss, or for direction of a verdict, has been held to be a concession that there was then evidence sufficient to carry the case to the jury. Barrett v. Railroad Co., 45 N. Y. 632. This rule seems to make out a waiver of the exception for denial of the motion to dismiss; that is to say, it is a concession that the case was so changed since that motion was made that the case had come to be one for the jury. Id. See, also, Sternwald v. Siegel (Com. Pl.) 27 N. Y. Supp. 375; Eckensberger v. Amend, 7 Misc. Rep. 452, 27 N. Y. Supp. 941; Id.,10 Misc. Rep. *158145, 30 N. Y. Supp. 915. With this concession before us, we cannot review the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict. Even if it were otherwise, we think that, although the case was a close one on the questions of negligence, it was properly, as it certainly was fairly and carefully, submitted to the jury by the learned trial judge.

The order of judgment is affirmed, with costs.
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3905 — Tesco/Carrefour (Czech Republic and Slovakia))

(2005/C 280/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
#### SAMUEL P. WALKER'S EXECUTORS AND ROBERTSON TOPP'S ADMINISTRATOR, APPELLANTS, v. THE UNITED STATES.

(106 U. S. R., 413, on appeal from 12 C. Cls. R., 408.)

On the 12tli day of April, 1866, Walker, a citizen and resident of Memphis, purchased, in Mobile, from O’Grády, a citizen. and resident of that city —both cities being then in the occupancy of the national forces — a lot of cotton, which, at the time, was in the military lines of the insurgent forces, in the States of Alabama and Mississippi, the inhabitants whereof had been declared to be in insurrection. Between June 30 and Decem■ber 1, 1865, a portion of the cotton, while in the hands of .the planter® from whom it was originally purchased by the Confederate Government, and from the agent of which' O’Grady had purchased, in Mobile, on the 5th day of April, 1865, was seized by Treasury agents of the United States, sold, and the proceeds paid into the Treasury.

This case was decided by the Court of Claims in'favor of the defendants, upon several grounds, set forth in the opinion reported in 12 C. Cls. B., 408, one of which was—

V. 'Where planters’bills of sale to the Confederate Government of certain cotton were indorsed over and transferred by the Confederate authorities to one who reindorsed and tránsferred them to the claimant, no title to the cotton was acquired by either the vendor or vendee. The transactions were void as against the United States, and the bills of sale were themselves notice to the purchaser of the illegality of the title.

Held by the Supreme Court:

The purchase from O’Grady by Walker was in violation of law, and was. not one out of which could arise, in favor of the latter, any right, as against the United States, which could be enforced in the courts of the Union. ' '

*756The Supreme Court, affirming the judgment, say: “ Without, therefore, giving other reasons quite apparent upon the record, and which would make it our duty to sustain the judgment of the Court of Claims, we content ourselves with offering it on the grounds indicated” [point Y, above quoted].

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Harlan.
Exhibit 99.2
Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, James N. Ryan, the Chief Executive Officer of Petroleum Development Corporation, the managing general partner of 1996-D Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"),  hereby certify that: 
- I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

___/s/ James N. Ryan      

Name: James N. Ryan

Title: Chief Executive Officer

Date: ___May 13, 2003_____
# Official Journal L 219/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.219.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 219 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5425 August 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.219.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 219

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5425 August 2011

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 852/2011 of 24 August 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 as regards the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota isoglucose until the end of the 2010/11 marketing year | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 853/2011 of 24 August 2011 amending for the 156th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network | 3 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 854/2011 of 24 August 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 5 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 852/2011 of 24 August 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 as regards the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota isoglucose until the end of the 2010/11 marketing year

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 853/2011 of 24 August 2011 amending for the 156th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network

3

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 854/2011 of 24 August 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

5

| | | IV   Acts adopted before 1 December 2009 under the EC Treaty, the EU Treaty and the Euratom Treaty |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 328/09/COL of 15 July 2009 on the Icelandic Harbour Acts (Iceland) | 7 |

IV   Acts adopted before 1 December 2009 under the EC Treaty, the EU Treaty and the Euratom Treaty

*

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 328/09/COL of 15 July 2009 on the Icelandic Harbour Acts (Iceland)

7

| 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.
Opinion issued October 22, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 5
- 0 0351
- CR

——————————— RONNEY EARL WILLIAMS , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 412 th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 74312

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Ronney Earl Williams , attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order grant ing his motion to suppress , dated May 18, 2015. The clerk’s record contains a judgment of acquittal signed on May 19, 2015. We dismiss the appeal.2

Williams filed what appeared to be a premature notice of appeal on April 15, 2015, but it states it is from the “judgment and/or order entered on record o f the court on March 27, 2015.” The record contains no order signed on March 27, 2015. The record also contains no trial court certification of the right of appeal. Having found the record reveals that Williams received no adverse rulings and that he was acquitted of all charges, we hold that we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Chabera v. State , No. 01

- 03

- 00630

- CR, 2004 WL 909243 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] April 29, 2004, no pet.). Accordingly, we dismiss Williams’ appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Brown. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).