alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2009273EN.01000101.xml

| 17.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 273/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 273/1

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 969/2009

of 16 October 2009

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 Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 October 2009.

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

Done at Brussels, 16 October 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.

2

---

ANNEX

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

| (EUR/100 kg) |
| --- |
| CN code | Third country code (1) | Standard import value |
| 0702 00 00 | MA | 56,0 |
| MK | 25,8 |
| TR | 91,0 |
| ZZ | 57,6 |
| 0707 00 05 | TR | 134,7 |
| ZZ | 134,7 |
| 0709 90 70 | TR | 108,9 |
| ZZ | 108,9 |
| 0805 50 10 | AR | 83,1 |
| CL | 83,5 |
| TR | 81,3 |
| US | 56,3 |
| ZA | 64,5 |
| ZZ | 73,7 |
| 0806 10 10 | BR | 211,4 |
| EG | 80,3 |
| TR | 118,0 |
| US | 205,1 |
| ZZ | 153,7 |
| 0808 10 80 | AU | 175,3 |
| CL | 86,9 |
| CN | 78,3 |
| MK | 16,1 |
| NZ | 83,2 |
| US | 96,2 |
| ZA | 77,9 |
| ZZ | 87,7 |
| 0808 20 50 | CN | 54,0 |
| TR | 85,0 |
| ZA | 89,8 |
| ZZ | 76,3 |

(EUR/100 kg)

CN code

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

0702 00 00

MA

56,0

MK

25,8

TR

91,0

ZZ

57,6

0707 00 05

TR

134,7

ZZ

134,7

0709 90 70

TR

108,9

ZZ

108,9

0805 50 10

AR

83,1

CL

83,5

TR

81,3

US

56,3

ZA

64,5

ZZ

73,7

0806 10 10

BR

211,4

EG

80,3

TR

118,0

US

205,1

ZZ

153,7

0808 10 80

AU

175,3

CL

86,9

CN

78,3

MK

16,1

NZ

83,2

US

96,2

ZA

77,9

ZZ

87,7

0808 20 50

CN

54,0

TR

85,0

ZA

89,8

ZZ

76,3

---

(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
  ZZ
  ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1954 

To align exemptions for general solicitation of investment in commodity pools 

similar to the exemption provided for general solicitation of securities 

under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2015 

Mr. FINCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To align exemptions for general solicitation of investment 

in commodity pools similar to the exemption provided 

for general solicitation of securities under the Jumpstart 

Our Business Startups Act. 

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 ‘‘Energize Emerging 

5 Opportunities Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1954 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR GENERAL SOLICITATION OF IN2 VESTMENT IN COMMODITY POOLS. 

3 Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of 

4 this Act, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

5 shall— 

6 (1) revise section 4.7(b) of title 17, Code of 

7 Federal Regulations, in the matter preceding para8 graph (1), to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(b) Relief available to commodity pool operators. 

10 Upon filing the notice required by paragraph (d) of this 

11 section, and subject to compliance with the conditions 

12 specified in paragraph (d) of this section, any registered 

13 commodity pool operator who sells participations in a pool 

14 solely to qualified eligible persons in an offering which 

15 qualifies for exemption from the registration requirements 

16 of the Securities Act pursuant to section 4(2) of that Act 

17 or pursuant to Regulation S, 17 CFR 230.901 et seq., and 

18 any bank registered as a commodity pool operator in con19 nection with a pool that is a collective trust fund whose 

20 securities are exempt from registration under the Securi21 ties Act pursuant to section 3(a)(2) of that Act and are 

22 sold solely to qualified eligible persons, may claim any or 

23 all of the following relief with respect to such pool:’’; and 

24 (2) revise section 4.13(a)(3)(i) of such title to 

25 read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1954 IH

1 ‘‘(i) Interests in the pool are exempt from registration 

2 under the Securities Act of 1933, and such interests are 

3 offered and sold pursuant to section 4 of the Securities 

4 Act of 1933 and the regulations thereunder;’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6453
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY LEWIS GLENN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:98-cr-00023-F-1; 5:00-cv-00852-F) Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 16, 2008 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Lewis Glenn, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Lewis Glenn seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Glenn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Glenn’s motion for relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22-0240 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. JASON EBY,

Defendant andAppellant.

ORDER Upon consideration ofthe parties'Motion to Dismiss by Stipulation, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case is remanded to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, for that court to enter an amendedjudgment strikingthe felony designation for Count II: Criminal Possession ofDangerous Drugs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder ofthe appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to the Honorable Matthew Cuffe and counsel ofrecord.
1 Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 14 2023

11/14/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0240
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, James A. Mitarotonda, Co-Chief Executive Officer of LQ Corporation, Inc., hereby certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LQ Corporation, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact 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 financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))***)***for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; ******

 

(b)****Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure 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 thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Dated: March 29, 2004
#### APPLEGATE v. WESTCHESTER HARDWOOD CO.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 17, 1894.)

Appeal—Reversal—Defective Record.

Where a summons in a district court of New York city was taken out. in the name of M. as plaintiff, and afterwards the name of A. was written on tlie margin, but M.’s name was not stricken out, nor A.’s name written in such a way as to indicate that he was substituted as plaintiff, and the subsequent proceedings did not show that A. was not at any time substituted as plaintiff, it is too late to appeal from a judgment in favor of A. to correct the record, or send it back for correction, but the judgment,will be reversed.

Appeal from first district court.

Action by Loie E. Applegate against the Westchester Hardwood Company. There was. a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant. appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOFF, and PRYOR, JJ.

George W. Gibbons, for appellant.

John F. Foley, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

A summons was taken out of the first district court in the name of William H. Morton, and there is proof of service of the same upon the defendant in this action. On the margin of the summons there is written in red ink the name of Loie E. Appleby, but the name of Morton is not stricken out, nor is the name of Appleby written in such a, way as to indicate that he was substituted for Morton, nor is there anything in the subsequent proceedings to show that Appleby or Applegate was at any time substituted in the place and stead of Morton as plaintiff in this action. It is now too late to correct the record, or to send the return back for correction; therefore the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
#### In the Matter of Roosevelt Savings Bank, Appellant, v Yvonne Scruggs-Leftwich, Individually and as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, et al., Respondents.

Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
#### Markking Smalls, Appellant-Respondent, v AJI Industries, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Jahkim A. Jenkins et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Submitted April 30, 2007;

decided June 7, 2007

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.
BIG THOMPSON BL MORAINE PARK NR ESTES PARK, COLatitude: 40.354Longitude: -105.584Elevation: 8005

BIG THOMPSON BL MORAINE PARK NR ESTES PARK, CO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bear Lake Site Page...



Bear Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lake Irene Site Page...



Lake Irene

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Phantom Valley Site Page...



Phantom Valley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Willow Park Site Page...



Willow Park
H elvetia Asset Recovery /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

July 2, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00012

- CV

Burton KAHN

, Appellant

v.

HELVETIA ASSET RECOVERY INC

., Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial C ourt No. 2013

- CI

- 18355 Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellee's Motion for Extension of Time to f ile i ts Brief Is Granted Pending t he Outcome

o f Appellee's Motion t o Dismiss

.

___________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 2nd day of July, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Caremark Rx, Inc. (the Corporation) for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certifies 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 Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: November 9, 2006 
|                       
|/s/ E. Mac Crawford    
|E. Mac Crawford        
|Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nico LeGrand, Appellant.

Submitted January 8, 2007;

decided January 11, 2007

Motion by Legal Aid Society et al. for leave to file a brief and appendix amici curiae on the appeal herein granted. Three copies of the brief, with appendix attached thereto, may be served and an original and 24 copies of the brief, with appendix attached thereto, filed within seven days.
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 138

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I

No. CR-16-795

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 

SERVICES

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

OPINION DELIVERED: MARCH 8, 2017

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 

ELEVENTH DIVISION

[NO. 60JV-16-414]

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. JAMES, 

JUDGE

AFFIRMED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

Appellant, the Division of Youth Services of the Arkansas Department of Human 

Services (hereinafter ADHS), appeals the June 28, 2016 order of commitment for J.G. and 

the June 30, 2016 order denying its motion to intervene and partially granting its motion to 

set aside the June 28, 2016 order filed by the Pulaski County Circuit Court. ADHS does 

not appeal the actual determination of delinquency with respect to J.G. in this matter, but 

rather, the limitations and requirements placed on ADHS by the order issued by the 

Eleventh Division of the Sixth Judicial District. ADHS argues that this court should (1) 

reverse the denial of the motion to intervene filed by ADHS and (2) find that the limitations 

placed on ADHS as it relates to its placement of J.G. upon commitment by the trial court 

infringes on its statutory authority. 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 138

2

We affirm based on the analysis in a companion opinion decided today. See Ark. 

Dep’t of Human Servs. v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 140.

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and VIRDEN, JJ., agree.

Nader G. Afsordeh, Arkansas Department of Human Services, Office of Chief 

Counsel, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
STRAWBERRY RESERVOIR DIVERSIONS TO SYAR TUNNELLatitude: 40.169Longitude: -111.184Elevation: 7595

STRAWBERRY RESERVOIR DIVERSIONS TO SYAR TUNNEL

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hobble Creek Site Page...



Hobble Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Daniels-Strawberry Site Page...



Daniels-Strawberry

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Strawberry Divide Site Page...



Strawberry Divide
PROVO RIVER AT RIVER ROAD BRIDGE, NR HEBER CITY,UTLatitude: 40.554Longitude: -111.434Elevation: 5712

PROVO RIVER AT RIVER ROAD BRIDGE, NR HEBER CITY,UT

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Peak Site Page...



Wolf Creek Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beaver Divide Site Page...



Beaver Divide

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Thaynes Canyon Site Page...



Thaynes Canyon

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Trial Lake Site Page...



Trial Lake
Humpback Chub Compre

Plan Ad Hoc Upda

Glen Knowles
TWG Charge 2-3-05AMWG Charge 3-3-05

 1. Describe linkages, sequences, and feedbac

projects

 2. Identify pri

orities and a timeline for comple

action within the comprehensive plan.

 3. Spell out specific steps and criteria for any 

be needed if a crisis occurs (e.

g., severe popu

 4. Con

tinue to include active participation by 

any additional expertise.

 5. Incorporate comments from the Science Ad

will include a response to comments doc

umen

draft.
Goal and ObjectiveRevise HBCCP to: Integrate plan actions  Be more prescriptive (priorities, tim crises criteria Integrates with the other plans (CM Work closely with SA s and GCMRC 

complete revised plan concurrent wplans (late 2005/early 2006)

 Will not look at in/out issue; HBCC

implementation ad hoc (AMWG) w
Progress as of Today 3 conference calls and 1 meet Reviewed progress on origina Advised GCMRC and BAHG on 

project funding in 2006 budge

 Retain $50 K for translocations Retain $25 K for dam operatoin Retain $200 K of BR dollars for 
What we’re working on Made writing assignments to r

sections, drafts by July 1

 Provide working draft of the c

criteria by July 1

 Critique Genetics Managemen

June 3 for recommendation by 

 Meet again in July, perhaps 5t
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ROSETTA ADAMSON,

 Petitioner

 v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

ET AL.,

 Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 680 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal and the Application for Leave to File Post-Submission Communication are

DENIED.
The HonorableTom Hanna

Criminal DistrictAttorney P. 0. Box 2553 Beaumont, Texalr 77704 Dear Mr. Hanna: opinion No. Ii-834 Ret Citation fees in small claims court.

You suggest there is a conflict between article 2460a, V.T.C.S., and article 3933a,V.T.C.S., and you ask what citation fee should be charged by the small claims court. Section 5a of article 2460a was last amended in 1963, and provides:

Sec. Sa. A fee of Two Dollars ($2) shall be charged for the service of citationprovided for in Section 5 and shallbe accountableae a fee of office by the officer serving citation. Article 3933a was last amended in 1975, and provides in part: Sheriffsand Constables shall receive the

followingfees: For each person, corporationor legal entity, on whom serviceof citation, subpoena, summons,or process not otherwise provided for, is performed returnmade, including-mileage, a fee of and if any, (a) Small Claims Courts $4.00 (b)All other Courts $8.00

p. 3520The HonorableTom **Hanna** - page 2 (H-834)

These two statutesare in irreconcilable conflict,since one provides for a two dollar fee and the other provides for a four dollar fee. When twO acts irreconcilablyconflict the latter enactment is held to repeal the inconsistent portions of the **former.** Crepe 2 Board of Firemen’ s Relief and Retirement**Fund** Trusteesof Ammo7456 S.W.Zd 434 75x. ci A --Amarillo ln0, writ ref'd n.r.e.1;Balsell 5 TexasVWat~~*Commission, 380 S.W.Zd 1 (Tex.Civ. App. -- Austin961.lt ref'd n.r.e.1. Accordingly,the provisions of article j933aprevail, and a citation fee-&f fou; dollars may be charged in small claims courts. SUMUARY The fee for citation in small claims court is four dollars. yery truly yours,

Attorney General of Texas APPROVED:

Opinion Committee jwb

p. 3521
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-23-00327-CR

EX PARTE Martin MARCOS-CALLEJAS,

Appellant

From the County Court, Jim Hogg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1034C

Honorable Greg Perkes, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order denying Martin 

Marcos-Callejas’s application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus is REVERSED, and this cause is 

REMANDED to the trial court with instructions to discharge Marcos-Callejas from bail and 

dismiss with prejudice the information charging Marcos-Callejas with misdemeanor criminal 

trespass.

SIGNED May 15, 2024.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0 548 CITY OF KALISPELL,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NATHAN RAY WARNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 2 3 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 13 2023

02/13/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0548