alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2016304EN.01000501.xml

| 11.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 304/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 304/5

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/1972

of 8 November 2016

adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 4 of the European Union for the financial year 2016

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1) and in particular Article 41 thereof,

Whereas:

| — | the Union's budget for the financial year 2016 was definitively adopted on 25 November 2015 (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

the Union's budget for the financial year 2016 was definitively adopted on 25 November 2015 (2),

| — | on 30 September 2016, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 4 to the general budget for the financial year 2016, |
| --- | --- |

—

on 30 September 2016, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 4 to the general budget for the financial year 2016,

| — | so as to be able to cover urgent funding needs related to migration and security, draft amending budget No 4 to the general budget for 2016 needs to be adopted without delay. Therefore, it is justified to shorten, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council's Rules of Procedure, the 8-week period for the information of national Parliaments laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1, |
| --- | --- |

—

so as to be able to cover urgent funding needs related to migration and security, draft amending budget No 4 to the general budget for 2016 needs to be adopted without delay. Therefore, it is justified to shorten, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council's Rules of Procedure, the 8-week period for the information of national Parliaments laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council's position on draft amending budget No 4 of the European Union for the financial year 2016 was adopted on 8 November 2016.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 8 November 2016.

For the Council

The President

P. KAŽIMÍR

---

(1)  
  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 48, 24.2.2016, p. 1.

2

---
Exhibit 23.2
            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To  the  Board  of  Directors
New  York  Health  Care,  Inc.  and  Subsidiaries


We  consent  to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form  S-3/A  (No.  333-108761)  and  S-8 filed on September 11, 2003 of New York
Health  Care,  Inc.  and  Subsidiaries  of  our  report dated March 4, 2003 with
respect  to the statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows of
New  York  Health Care, Inc. (formerly The Bio Balance Corporation) for the year
ended  December  31,  2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2004 annual
report  on  Form  10-K  of  New  York  Health  Care,  Inc.  and  Subsidiaries.


/s/  Holtz  Rubenstein  Reminick  LLP

Holtz  Rubenstein  Reminick  LLP
Melville,  New  York
April  14,  2005


<PAGE>
STATE of North Carolina v. San Junior BLAKELEY.

No. 308A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

Nora Henry Hargrove, for San Junior Blakeley.

Celia Grasty Lata, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 22nd day of June 2004 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of August 2004."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4983 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic fiber tow. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2008 

Mrs. CUBIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic fiber 

tow. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC FIBER TOW. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4983 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Acrylic fiber tow 

(polyacrylonitrile tow) containing by weight a minimum of 98 percent acrylonitrile, not more than 30 

ppm sodium and from 2 to 4 

percent water, imported in 

the form of three sub-bundles, each containing 50,000 

filaments and with average 

filament measuring 1.2 

decitex (plus or minus 0.1) 

(provided for in subheading 

5501.30.00) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
STATE v. Willie M. JACKSON.

No. 486P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2004.

Steven F. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie M. Pittman, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd day of September 2004 by Kimberly A. Swank to Withdraw as Counsel:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of October 2004."
Image Courtesy: NOAA

Image Courtesy: NOAA

NOAA Coastal Blue Carbon Activities 

2015 ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

Supported Key Community of Practice Developments 

NOAA Coastal Blue Carbon Goals for 2016 

During 2015, NOAA supported the establishment of a U.S. Coastal Wetlands Carbon 

Work Group (CWCWG) with the goal of incorporating coastal wetlands into the U.S. 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory in response to the action in the Climate and 

Natural Resources Working Group’s Priority Agenda.

NOAA also supported the formation of the National Blue Carbon Network (BCN) to 

coordinate and support actions that lead to the advancement of blue carbon 

objectives including demonstration projects.

Shared Blue Carbon Findings and Opportunities 

NOAA shared its findings to a number of national and international parties. The group:

§ Presented to Gulf of Mexico Alliance’s (GOMA) Coordination Team and Business 

Advisory Council, as well as at six scientific conferences including the American 

Geophysical Union.

§ Organized a session at the United Nations Conference of the Parties in December 2014.

§ Wrote a paper summarizing NOAA and partner blue carbon efforts to be published in 

FY16 in a special issue of the journal Coastal Management.

§ Developed international case studies of countries using UNFCCC mechanisms and other 

forms of carbon financing to implement blue carbon projects (Wylie et. al. 2016). 

§ Developed a Science on a Sphere blue carbon story about the importance of coastal 

blue carbon habitats for climate mitigation and adaptation. 

Image : NOAA

Supported NOAA and Partner Efforts to Advance Science and Policy 

§ Work with partners to complete the first U.S. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory to include coastal wetlands.

§ Work wit h partners to identify potential pilot project sites for carbon finance projects that utilize the “Tidal Wetland and 

Seagrass Restoration Methodology” and carry out at least one feasibility assessment.

§ Continue socializing blue carbon concepts and opportunities at conferences, meetings, and workshops.

§ Seek to incorporate a post-restoration carbon monitoring component into one tidal wetland restoration project.

In 2015, NOAA helped lead a Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC) blue carbon 

project that is focused on expanding seagrass mapping and carbon data in North America, 

completing policy analyses of where blue carbon can be incorporated into Mexico and 

Canada’s federal policies, and mapping of approaches to a conservation methodology.

NOAA also funded the Restore America’s Estuaries (RAE) Tampa Bay Landscape 

Assessment to model how effective coastal management and restoration projects in the 

Tampa Bay area can increase removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, while also providing 

additional ecosystem benefits

Finally, NOAA supported coastal carbon cycle science via a project examining belowground 

marsh productivity and salt marsh carbon fluxes in North Carolina to help support carbon 

sequestration and landscape carbon models.

Image Courtesy: Restore America’s Estuaries

For additional information, see http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/coastalbluecarbon.html
STATE v. McDOUGLE.

No. COA04-88.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 5, 2005.

Certification Date April 25, 2005.

Appeal from Onslow, (02CRS60681, 02CRS60683).

Case reported without published opinion. No error in part; dismissed without prejudice in part.
Exhibit






PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, PHOENIX, ARIZONA




LIFETIME INCOME SCHEDULE SUPPLEMENT


Withdrawals of Excess Income proportionally reduce the Guaranteed Income Amount available for future Benefit Years.


The Charge for the Rider may be increased by us subject to the Earliest Charge Change Date and Maximum Charge for the Rider indicated below.


Annuity Number: [001-0001]  


Effective Date:  [Effective Date of Rider]


[Designated Life] / [Spousal Designated Lives] on the Effective Date:


[John Doe]            Date of Birth: [October 21, 1972]
[[Mary Doe]            Date of Birth: [October 15, 1972]]


Initial Income Growth Rate:  [6.0%] per year applied on a simple interest basis


Initial Income Percentage: 




	
						
	[Age of  Designated Life on the Effective Date
	Designated Life Income Percentage on the Effective Date
	Age of  Designated Life on the Effective Date
	Designated Life Income Percentage on the Effective Date
	Age of  Designated Life on the Effective Date
	Designated Life Income Percentage on the Effective Date

	40
	4.50%
	56
	5.30%
	71
	6.05%

	41
	4.55%
	57
	5.35%
	72
	6.10%

	42
	4.60%
	58
	5.40%
	73
	6.15%

	43
	4.65%
	59
	5.45%
	74
	6.20%

	44
	4.70%
	60
	5.50%
	75
	6.25%

	45
	4.75%
	61
	5.55%
	76
	6.30%

	46
	4.80%
	62
	5.60%
	77
	6.35%

	47
	4.85%
	63
	5.65%
	78
	6.40%

	48
	4.90%
	64
	5.70%
	79
	6.45%

	49
	4.95%
	65
	5.75%
	80
	6.50%

	50
	5.00%
	66
	5.80%
	81
	6.55%

	51
	5.05%
	67
	5.85%
	82
	6.60%

	52
	5.10%
	68
	5.90%
	83
	6.65%

	53
	5.15%
	69
	5.95%
	84
	6.70%

	54
	5.20%
	70
	6.00%
	85
	6.75%]

	55
	5.25%
	 
	 
	 
	 








LIFETIME INCOME SCHEDULE SUPPLEMENT (Continued)




	
						
	[Age of Younger Spousal Designated Life on the Effective Date
	Spousal Designated Life Income Percentage on the Effective Date
	Age of Younger Spousal Designated Life on the Effective Date
	Spousal Designated Life Income Percentage on the Effective Date
	Age of Younger Spousal Designated Life on the Effective Date
	Spousal Designated Life Income Percentage on the Effective Date

	40
	4.00%
	56
	4.80%
	71
	5.55%

	41
	4.05%
	57
	4.85%
	72
	5.60%

	42
	4.10%
	58
	4.90%
	73
	5.65%

	43
	4.15%
	59
	4.95%
	74
	5.70%

	44
	4.20%
	60
	5.00%
	75
	5.75%

	45
	4.25%
	61
	5.05%
	76
	5.80%

	46
	4.30%
	62
	5.10%
	77
	5.85%

	47
	4.35%
	63
	5.15%
	78
	5.90%

	48
	4.40%
	64
	5.20%
	79
	5.95%

	49
	4.45%
	65
	5.25%
	80
	6.00%

	50
	4.50%
	66
	5.30%
	81
	6.05%

	51
	4.55%
	67
	5.35%
	82
	6.10%

	52
	4.60%
	68
	5.40%
	83
	6.15%

	53
	4.65%
	69
	5.45%
	84
	6.20%

	54
	4.70%
	70
	5.50%
	85
	6.25%]

	55
	4.75%
	 
	 
	 
	 








Income Growth Cap: [Not applicable]


Minimum Guarantee Payment: [$100]


Charge for the Rider:  [0.XX]%.


Earliest Charge Change Date:  [The Valuation Day coinciding with or next following the [3rd] anniversary of the Effective Date]


Elective Termination Waiting Period: [This Rider may be electively terminated at any time on or after the [XXth] Anniversary of the Effective Date.]


Maximum Charge for the Rider:  1.50%


Minimum Income Growth Rate for Additional Purchase Payment(s): 0.05%


Minimum Income Percentage for Additional Purchase Payment(s): 1.00%












ICC19-P-SCH-LI(6/19)    1
An official website of the United States government.								Here's how you know we're official.				

##### dot gov icon**Official websites use .gov**

A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

##### https icon**Secure websites use HTTPS**

A small lock or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to a .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

National Ocean ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

              -  Home 
              -  Ocean Facts 
              -  TOPICS ****                  - Explore All Topics
                - Careers
                - Economy
                - Ecosystems
                - Geodesy
                - Hazards
                - Navigation
                - Observations
                - Ocean
                - Recreation
                - Sea Level Rise 
                - Story Maps
                - Tools 
              -  Education 
              -  News 
              -  Podcasts 
              -  Video 
              -  Images 
              -  About Us 

HomeEducationCoralsAnthropogenic Threats to Corals

# Grounded Ships

Ships that become  grounded on coral reefs may cause immediate and long-term damage to  reefs. A grounded ship may smash hundreds of years worth of coral  growth in an instant. Over time, fuel, oil, paints and other chemicals  may leak from the ship, continuing to damage the fragile corals as the  ship's hull rusts in the harsh marine environment.

### Corals Lessons

              - Welcome
              - What are Corals?
              - Zooxanthellae What's That?
              - How Do Stony Corals Grow?
              - How Do Coral Reefs Form?
              - Where Are Coral Reefs Found?
              - How Do Corals Reproduce?
              - Importance of Coral Reefs
              - Natural Threats to Coral Reefs
              - Anthropogenic Threats to Corals
              - Coral Diseases
              - Protecting Coral Reefs
              - References
              - Roadmap to Resources 
              - Subject Review (PDF)

----

National Science Teaching Association (NSTA)

###### **Search** Education

###### Get **Social**

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
JOHN BRADFORD

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3113

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 16, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public

Defender

, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE

, OSTERHAUS

, and WINOKUR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 28

No. CR-15-727

WESLEY ELISHA GRISSOM

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered January 28, 2016

APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

APPEAL AND MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME IN EVENT 

COURT DENIES MOTION TO DISMISS 

APPEAL

[GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 

NO. 26CR-06-611]

HONORABLE MARCIA R. 

HEARNSBERGER, JUDGE

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL 

GRANTED; MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME MOOT.

PER CURIAM 

On September 18, 2008, judgment was entered reflecting that appellant Wesley 

Elisha Grissom had entered a plea of guilty to sexual assault in the first degree. He was 

sentenced to 660 months’ imprisonment.

 On July 15, 2015, Grissom filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction 

relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2008). On August 6, 2015, 

the trial court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the 

petition because it was not timely filed. On August 19, 2015, Grissom lodged an appeal in 

this court from the order. 

Now before us are the appellee State’s motion requesting that the appeal be dismissed 

and the State’s motion requesting an extension of brief time if this court denies the motion 

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 28

2 

to dismiss the appeal. We grant the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal because, pursuant 

to Rule 37.2(c)(i), Grissom’s petition was not timely filed. The motion for an extension of 

brief time is moot. 

 When a petitioner seeking postconviction relief entered a plea of guilty, a petition 

under Rule 37.1 must be filed within ninety days of the date that the judgment was enteredof-record. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c)(i). The petition that Grissom filed on July 15, 2015, 

was filed almost seven years after the judgment in his case had been entered of record in 

2008; accordingly, the trial court was correct to deny relief. 

 Motion to dismiss appeal granted; motion for extension of brief time moot.
Frank Delano WHITEHEAD Aka Neal Deon Lucas v. STATE of North Carolina.

No. 78P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 3, 2005.

Frank Delano Whitehead, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 3rd day of February 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wake County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of March 2005."
- 389 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF LAKIN

Cite as 310 Neb. 389

In re Estate of Charles E. Lakin, deceased.

Charles E. Lakin Foundation, Inc., appellant, v. 

Thomas Pribil and William Kilzer, Copersonal 

Representatives of the Estate of 

Charles E. Lakin, appellees.

In re Trust of Charles E. Lakin, deceased.

Charles E. Lakin Foundation, Inc., appellant, v. 

Thomas Pribil and William Kilzer, Cotrustees 

of the Charles E. Lakin Revocable 

Trust, et al., appellees.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed November 19, 2021. Nos. S-20-093, S-20-094.

supplemental opinion

Appeals from the County Court for Douglas County: 

Stephanie S. Shearer, Judge. Former opinion modified. 

Motions for rehearing overruled.

Zachary W. Lutz-Priefert, Frederick D. Stehlik, William J. 

Lindsay, Jr., and John A. Svoboda, of Gross & Welch, P.C., 

L.L.O., for appellant.

Edward D. Hotz, Amanda M. Forker, and Benjamin C. 

Deaver, of Pansing, Hogan, Ernst & Bachman, L.L.P., for 

defendants-appellees Thomas L. Pribil and William A. Kilzer.

Trenten P. Bausch and Megan S. Wright, of Cline, Williams, 

Wright, Johnson & Oldfather, L.L.P., for appellee Thomas L. 

Pribil in his individual capacity.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

12/03/2021 12:07 AM CST
- 390 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

IN RE ESTATE OF LAKIN

Cite as 310 Neb. 389

Cathy S. Trent-Vilim and Brian J. Brislen, of Lamson, 

Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., for appellee William A. Kilzer, an 

individual.

Heavican, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Funke, and Freudenberg, 

JJ.

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on three motions for rehearing filed 

by the appellees, Thomas Pribil and William Kilzer—in their 

individual capacities and their capacities as copersonal representatives and cotrustees—concerning our opinion in In re 

Estate of Lakin.

 1 While there is no substantive merit to the 

motions, Pribil and Kilzer point out that this court incorrectly 

found that the check used to pay Pribil was not in our record. 

The check appears in exhibit 59.

We overrule the motions, but modify the original opinion 

to substitute language as follows. In the paragraph under the 

subheading “7. § 6-1437,” we withdraw the third and fourth 

sentences and substitute: “Our record is not clear on the 

source of the payment and the capacity of the person making 

the payment.”

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

Former opinion modified.

Motions for rehearing overruled.

Miller-Lerman and Papik, JJ., not participating.

1 In re Estate of Lakin, 310 Neb. 271, 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021).
ROLLINS v. TOWN OF CLEVELAND

No. COA04-997

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 3, 2005.

Certification Date May 23, 2005.

Appeal from the Rowan (03CVS1681).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer ofGrayMark Productions, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that, to thebest of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Companyfor the three months ended March 31, 2006 (the “Quarterly Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the QuarterlyReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 4, 2006 |   | /s/ JOHN SIMONELLI      |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----