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

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1139/2004

of 21 June 2004         

fixing Community producer and import prices for carnations and roses with a view to the application of the arrangements governing imports of certain floricultural products originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 of 21 December 1987 fixing conditions for the application of preferential customs duties on imports of certain flowers originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (1), and in particular Article 5(2)(a) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Community producer and import prices for uniflorous (bloom) carnations, multiflorous (spray) carnations, large-flowered roses and small-flowered roses as referred to in Article 1b of Regulation (EEC) No 700/88 for a fortnightly period shall be as set out in the Annex.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 22 June 2004.

It shall apply from 23 June to 6 July 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 21 June 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 382, 31.12.1987, p. 22. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1300/97 (OJ L 177, 5.7.1997, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 72, 18.3.1988, p. 16. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2062/97 (OJ L 289, 22.10.1997, p. 1).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 21 June 2004 fixing Community producer and import prices for carnations and roses with a view to the application of the arrangements governing imports of certain floricultural products originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

----
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32663-32664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15180]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Scientific Review and Evaluation Board for Health Services 
Research and Development Service, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, 
gives notice under Pub. L. 92-463, that a meeting of the Scientific 
Review and Evaluation Board for Health Services Research and 
Development Service will be held at the Hilton Minneapolis/St. Paul 
Hotel from June 25 through 27, 2001. On June 25, 2001, the meeting will 
convene from 7-9 p.m. and on June 26 through June 27 from 8 a.m. until 
5 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to review research and development

[[Page 32664]]

applications concerned with the measurement and evaluation of health-
care services and with testing new methods of health-care delivery and 
management. Applications are reviewed for scientific and technical 
merit. Recommendations regarding funding are prepared for the Chief 
Research and Development Officer.
    This meeting will be open to the public at the start of the June 25 
session for approximately one half-hour to cover administrative matters 
and to discuss the general status of the program. The closed portion of 
the meeting involves discussion, examination, reference to, and oral 
review of staff and consultant critiques of research protocols and 
similar documents. During this portion of the meeting, discussion and 
recommendations will include qualifications of the personnel conducting 
the studies (the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), as well as research 
information (the premature disclosure of which would be likely to 
frustrate significantly implementation of proposed agency action 
regarding such research projects). As provided by the subsection 10(d) 
of Pub. L. 92-463, as amended by Pub. L. 94-409, closing portions of 
these meetings is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B).
    Those who plan to attend the open session should contact the 
Assistant Director, Scientific Review (124F), Health Services Research 
and Development Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 1400 I Street, 
NW., Suite 780, Washington, DC, at least five days before the meeting. 
For further information, call (202) 408-3665.

    Dated: May 17, 2001.

    By Direction of the Secretary:
Ventris C. Gibson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-15180 Filed 6-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
Justin FRAZIER, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-5776.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Marvel Entertainment, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 financial information
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 responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ Kenneth P. WestKenneth P. WestChief Financial Officer
Angelica HART, et al., petitioners, v. BENTON COUNTY, OREGON SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al.

No. 16-6067.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
JUNNE KYOO KOH, petitioner, v. Jane DOE, et al.

No. 16-5992.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
ACCEPTED 03-15-00467-CR 7190461 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/1/2015 2:53:36 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK 

### NO. 03-15-00467-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE TillRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMADORFERNANDEZ, Appellant. 

# vs. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

From the 119th Judicial District Court ofTom Green County, Texas Honorable BenWoodward, District Judge Presiding



### APPELLANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: Appellant files his first Motion for extension oftime to file Appellant's Brief. 1. The deadline for filing Appellant's Briefinthis case is October 2, 2015.2. Appellant seeks an extension to November 25, 2015. 3. Appellant's counsel is a sole practitioner. Due to multiple demands on counsel's time including 7 days spent injurytrial overthe last six weeks, counsel will not be able to review the record and prepare the Briefwithin the allotted time. Appellant, THEREFORE, ASKS that the time for filing Appellant's Brief be extended to November 25, 2015. Respectfully submitted, Law Office ofJimmy Stewart 101 S. Park SanAngelo, TX 76901 Tel: (325) 658-1532 Fax: (325) 655-9746

Attorney for Appellant 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certifY that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing document has this the 3oth day ofSeptember, 2015, been served upon Jason Ferguson, Assistant District Attorney ofrecord.
```

[Federal Register: November 10, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 60487]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10no97-31]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 25, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement Objectives.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-29752 Filed 11-6-97; 12:29 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO    INDEX ========**

----
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000100503-MAY-201308:12 AM
| Dec. 30, 2014                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Retail | Fidelity Total Emerging Markets Fund                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| **Supplement to theFidelity® Emerging Markets Discovery Fund and Fidelity Total Emerging Markets FundDecember 30, 2014Prospectus**Effective October 1, 2015, Fidelity® Emerging Markets Discovery Fund changed its classification from a non-diversified fund to a diversified fund. |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Supplement Text Block.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**fit_SupplementTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**fit_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**dei_DocumentInformationDocumentAxis=fit_RetailClassMember**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
| X                                                                                                                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**dei_LegalEntityAxis=fit_S000034265Member**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
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 of Cost-U-Less, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 28, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.
Jeffrey Meder, President and 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 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 Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:November 11, 2003


                                        /s/   J. Jeffrey Meder
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        J. Jeffrey Meder
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
Troy SINGLETON, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-5900.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-4876 JUSTIN THOMAS PAGE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-99-4) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Haakon Thorsen, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Brian LeeWhisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Justin Thomas Page appeals his conviction and sentence imposedfollowing a guilty plea to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD). Page's attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raises the single claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Page was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief but has not done so. In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have considered the briefs on appeal and examined the entire record for meritorious issues. We find no error and affirm.Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v. King , 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, such a claim is more properly addressed in a collateral proceeding in which c ounsel has the opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. See United States v. DeFusco ,949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). An ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be brought, however, when the record conclusively establishes counsel's representation was constitutionally ineffective. See King , 119 F.3d at 295. The record does not conclusively establish Page's counsel renderedconstitutionally ineffective assistance. Thus, we conclude Page's ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). Pursuant to Anders , this court has reviewed the record for potential error and has found none. Accordingly, we affirm Page's conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con-
2tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2

                        METWEST MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.

                             OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE



        I, Bruce J. Blohowiak, hereby certify that I am the duly elected Vice
President of Metwest Mortgage Services, Inc., a Washington corporation, (the
"Corporation") and, pursuant to Section 3.14 of the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement, dated as of April 1, 1996, entered into by and among the
Corporation, the Sellers (as defined therein), The Bank of New York and Tryon
Mortgage Funding, Inc. (the "Agreement"), I do hereby certify that a review
of the activities of the Corporation during the preceding calendar year and the
performance of the Corporation under the Agreement was conducted under my
supervision and that, to the best of my knowledge based upon such review, the
Corporation has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement throughout
the year.

        In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto signed my name this 26th day of
March, 1997.



                                        /s/ Bruce J. Blohowiak
                                        ----------------------
                                        Bruce J. Blohowiak
                                        Vice President
848.

#### Early County v. Fielder & Allen Company.

Complaint, from city court of Blakely — Judge Jordan. October 22, 1907.

Hill, C. J.

1. While, by the Political Code, § 343, all contracts made with county authorities on behalf of a county must be in writing and entered on the minutes *(Milburn*v. *Glynn County,*109 *Ga.*473; *Holliday*v. *Jackson County,*121 *Ga.*310), yet where a suit is brought against a county on an alleged written contract, attached to the petition as an exhibit, and the defendant files no demurrer, but in its answer, though categorically denying each allegation of the petition, admits that “it [the county] entered into a contract with the plaintiff,” substantially of the nature indicated in the petition, for the purchase of certain furniture, and that the furniture was delivered, but alleges that there was a breach of warranty, in that the furniture was not of the grade contracted for, and on the trial no point is made as to the plaintiff’s failure to prove that the contract was entered on the minutes, the defendant will not be allowed, after verdict against it, to raise for the first time, on motion for a new trial, the point that the plaintiff did not prove that the contract was entered on the minutes of the county commissioners. Bedin*gfield*v. *Bates,*2 *Ga. App.*107.

2. The admission of a party that he made “a contract” will, in the absence of explanation, limitation, or exception, be construed to mean that he made a valid, binding contract, executed with the formality required by law. *Draper*v. *Macon Dry Goods Co.,*103 *Ga.*601, 663.

3. None of the other exceptions are meritorious.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Russell, J., dissents.*

*269Submitted January 22,

Decided April 22, 1908.

*R. H. Sheffield,*for plaintiff in error.

*Pottle & Glessner,*contra.
Exhibit 10.10


 



UNSECURED PROMISSORY NOTE












February 26, 2016




U.S. $100,000.00 












FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Eos Petro, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Issuer"), hereby promises to pay to the order of Bacchus Investors, LLC, a California limited liability company (the "Payee"), at such place as the Payee shall direct in writing, the principal sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), with interest at 10.00% on the unpaid balance.  All references to Dollars herein are to lawful currency of the United States of America.







All unpaid principal of this Note and accrued interest shall be due and payable on demand (the "Maturity Date"). This Note may be prepaid at any time in whole or in part without penalty.







In any action at law or in equity to enforce or construe any provisions or rights under this Note, the unsuccessful party or parties to such litigation, as determined by a court pursuant to a final offer, judgment or decree, shall pay to the successful party or parties all costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by such successful party.







This Note and all actions arising out of or in connection with this Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to the conflicts of law provisions of the State of California, or of any other state.

















Eos Petro, Inc.


A Nevada corporation












By: /s/ Nikolas Konstant


    Nikolas Konstant


    Its: Chief Financial Officer
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40904

Summary Calendar

 

BRENDA S. SHELTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:95-CV-1005)

_________________________________________________________________

July 9, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brenda S. Shelton appeals from the district court’s

decision in favor of the Commissioner which denied disability

benefits. Shelton argues that the Commissioner’s decision is not

supported by substantial evidence and that the Commissioner failed

to consider the opinion of her treating physician and erred by not

requiring the testimony of a vocational expert. We have reviewed
No. 97-40904

-2-

the record and the briefs of the parties and find no error in the

district court’s determination.

AFFIRMED.