alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Douglas Shane WRIGHT.

No. 483A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2005.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 616 S.E.2d 366 (2005), finding prejudicial error in judgments entered 20 October 2003 by Judge Evelyn W. Hill in Superior Court, Alamance County, and ordering a new trial. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 November 2005.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Chris Z. Sinha, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

Robert T. Newman, Sr., Asheville, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.25


                                  July 14, 2005



Crimson Exploration Inc.
480 N. Sam Houston Parkway, Suite 300
Houston, Texas  77060
Attention: Chief Financial Officer

Re:      Credit Agreement

Gentlemen:

     You have advised us that Crimson Exploration Inc. (the "Company") is
proposing to enter into a Credit Agreement (the "Credit Agreement") with Wells
Fargo Bank, National Association ("Wells Fargo"). We understand that the Credit
Agreement will provide for a first priority reserve based credit facility with
no equity or reserve based incentives (a "Permitted Facility"), as permitted by
Section 4.21 of the Shareholders Rights Agreement (the "Shareholders Rights
Agreement"), dated February 28, 2005, between us and the Company. We also
understand that the obligations of the Company under the Credit Agreement will
be secured by a lien on all the Company's and its subsidiaries' assets and, in
connection therewith, the stock or membership interests, as the case may be, of
your subsidiaries are required to be pledged to Wells Fargo, and the Company and
its subsidiaries will be required to execute and deliver certain security
agreements, mortgages, deeds of trust and such other instruments (collectively,
the "Security Instruments") as may be desired or required by Wells Fargo. In
connection with the execution and delivery by the Company of the Credit
Agreement and by the Company and its subsidiaries of the Security Instruments
with respect to this proposed Permitted Facility, we hereby waive compliance by
the Company and its subsidiaries with Section 4.11(c) of the Shareholders Rights
Agreement prohibiting pledges of equity interests. Our waiver herein shall not
be deemed to be or construed as a continuing waiver of Section 4.11(c).
Furthermore, the waiver provided herein shall not be and shall not be deemed a
waiver of any other covenant or obligation under the Shareholders Rights
Agreement.

                                        Yours truly.
                                        OCM GW HOLDINGS, LLC

                                        By: OCM Principal Opportunities Fund
                                        III, L.P., its managing member

                                        By: OCM Principal Opportunities Fund III
                                        GP, LLC, its general partner

                                        By: Oaktree Capital Management, LLC, its
                                        managing member


                                        By: /s/ Richard J. Goldstein
                                           -------------------------
                                           Name:  Richard J. Goldstein
                                           Title:  Managing Director


                                        By: /s/ Richard Ting
                                            ----------------
                                            Name:  Richard Ting
                                            Title:  Vice President, Legal
IN RE K.N.O.

No. COA04-1702

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed November 1, 2005

Certification Date November 21, 2005

Appeal from Catawba (03J33, 03J34).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We have issued our report dated September 30, 2005, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedules
included in the Annual Report of Prosoft Learning Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of ProsoftTraining on
Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-40982, 333-30336, 333-35249, 333-28993, 333-11247, 333-53000, 333-57764, 333-64196, 333-76984 and 333-119339) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-19477, 333-67425, 333-51360, 333-53472 and 333-81310).



|                         
|-------------------------
|                         
|/s/ Hein & Associates LLP
|                         
|Phoenix, Arizona         
|October 27, 2005
*After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted November 10, 2005 * Decided November 14, 2005

Before Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 05-1203 DARWIN SCHMIDT, Plaintiff-Appellant ,

v. MICHELLE EGGERS, Defendant-Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin No. 03-C-482-S John C. Shabaz, Judge

. O R D E R After a Wisconsin court revoked his parole, Darwin Schmidt sued his parole officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, essentially claiming that she engineered the revocation to satisfy a personal vendetta. Schmidt lost at summary judgment, and after two timely but unsuccessful motions for reconsideration, he appealed to this court in January 2004. We dismissed that appeal after Schmidt failed to pay the required fees. In January 2005, nearly a year after our dismissal, Schmidt returned to the district court and filed a third “Motion for Reconsideration.” In that motion— which because of its timing was actually a motion to vacate the judgment under UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 05-1203 Page 2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), see Talano v. Northwestern Med. Faculty Found., Inc. , 273 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir. 2001)—Schmidt did nothing more than challenge the grant of summary judgment. The district court denied the motion, and Schmidt now appeals. The time to appeal the adverse ruling on summary judgment long ago expired, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), so the only question before us is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Schmidt’s most recent “Motion for Reconsideration.” In that motion Schmidt attacks only the merits of the order granting summary judgment in favor of his parole officer, but that legal question should have been raised in the dismissed appeal and is not a proper ground for relief under Rule 60(b). See Gleash v. Yuswak , 308 F.3d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 2002). What Schmidt actually seeks is another chance at appeal, and we have said before that a motion under Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for a timely appeal. See Bell v. Eastman Kodak Co. , 214 F.3d 798, 801 (7th Cir. 2000); Neuberg v. Michael Reese Hosp. Found. , 123 F.3d 951, 955 (7th Cir. 1997); Donald v. Cook County Sheriff’s Dep’t , 95 F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir. 1996). AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant ToSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofHospira, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Terrence C. Kearney, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/   Terrence C. Kearney |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Terrence C. Kearney            |
| Senior Vice President, Finance |
| and Chief Financial Officer    |
| November 10, 2005         |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Hospira, Inc. and will be retained by Hospira, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

1

----
STATE v. BRELAND.

No. COA04-1665.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
24 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

ARKANSAS 

#42 #43 0.3% $531 #42 #35 #38 

$1.6 B SPENT IN 1.2% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $10.9 B CONTRACT 18,432 NUMBER OF $0.7 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 25%

Research and

Development: 2% 

Supplies and

Equipment: 54% 

Service: 19%

By Service 

Army

46%

Navy/Marines

17%

Air Force

33%

Other Defense

3%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 12%

Active Duty: 21%

National Civilian: 20%

Guard: 46%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

59%

Navy/Marines

2%

Air Force

38%

Other Defense

1%

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions)

Aerojet Rocketdyne $379.3 M

Contrack ECC $180.0 M

Ducommun $39.6 M

Ross Group Construction Corp. $35.2 M

United Excel $23.8 M

Tigerbrain Cyntergy $11.4 M

PPG Industries $10.7 M

National Presto Industries $10.6 M

Cree Inc. $8.5 M

TransDigm Group $7.6 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$0.9

$0.7 $0.6 $0.5

FY13 FY14

$0.5 $0.5

$0.4

FY15

$0.3

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

$725.1 MILLION 18,432

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Reserve Total

Pulaski 3,765 2,032 3,058 1,509 10,364

Sebastian 37 367 1,366 128 1,898

Jefferson ND 766 118 0 ND

Benton 0 39 642 151 832

Washington 15 ND 321 0 ND

Craighead ND 20 252 50 ND

Faulkner ND 35 74 166 ND

Pope ND 55 124 ND ND

Lonoke 0 ND 164 0 ND

Garland ND 64 20 76 ND
(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 ARKANSAS

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions)

Ouachita

Pulaski

Carroll

Jefferson

Madison

Washington

Sebastian

Columbia

Benton

Garland

(M = millions)

$400.9 M 

$338.0 M 

$23.3 M 

$20.4 M 

$17.1 M 

$11.0 M 

$8.7 M 

$8.3 M 

$6.8 M 

$6.0 M 

Pulaski

Sebastian

Jefferson

Benton

Washington

Garland

Faulkner

Craighead

Pope

Baxter

$490.4 M 

$63.0 M 

$53.5 M 

$15.4 M 

$8.5 M 

$6.5 M 

$6.2 M 

$6.0 M 

$6.0 M 

$5.2 M 

Benton Carroll

Sebastian

Pulaski

Garland

Jefferson

Ouachita

Columbia

Washington Madison

Baxter

Craighead

Pope

Faulkner

Pulaski

Benton

Washington

Garland

Jefferson

Sebastian

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

25
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5052 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5052

      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain mixtures of N,N-
                        Dimethylacetoacetamide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2008

  Mr. Garrett of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain mixtures of N,N-
                        Dimethylacetoacetamide.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MIXTURES OF N,N-DIMETHYLACETOACETAMIDE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00      Mixtures of N,N-    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Dimethylacetoacet                                                  31/2011
                         amide (CAS No.
                         2044-64-6) with
                         an additive that
                         stabilizes color
                         and diluted in
                         water with a
                         calculated assay
                         of not less than
                         93% and not more
                         than 99%
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2924.19.11)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**      Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the UnitedStates Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Frederic H. Moll, M.D., in his capacity as Chief Executive Officerof Hansen Medical, Inc., hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: (i) the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2007 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and  (ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Hansen Medical,Inc. as of, and for, the periods covered by the Report.August 14, 2007           /s/ Frederic H. Moll, M.D             **Chief Executive Officer**      **(Principal Executive Officer)**       This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to which it relates, is notdeemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of Hansen Medical, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theExchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of NorthStar Realty Finance Corp. (the "Company") for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Andrew C. Richardson, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



Date: August 8, 2008

By:

/s/ANDREW C. RICHARDSONAndrew C. Richardson Chief Financial Officer


This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
STATE v. CARTER.

No. COA03-318.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 6, 2004.

Certification Date July 26, 2004.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
SOUTH CAROLINA 

ηϮΘ

Ψρ͘ε^WEd/E

#23 

Ϯ͘ϯйK&^dd'W

ϭ͘ϭй

OF TOTAL U.S. 

Ψϭ͕ϭκϳ

PER RESIDENT 

ηϯϭ

$3.2 B CONTRACT 

ηϭϬ

ςΘ͕ϯΘϭEhDZK&

ηϭς

$2.7 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

 DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͗ Θй ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂŶĚ

ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͗ ϯй ^ƵƉƉůŝĞƐĂŶĚ

ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͗ ϮΘй

^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ͗ ςϭй

By Service 

Army 

22% 

Navy/Marines 

45% 

Air Force 

20% 

Other Defense 

13% 

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕LJdLJƉĞ

Reserve: 10% 

National 

Guard: 16% 

Active Duty: 58% 

Civilian: 16% 

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕By Service 

Army 

43% 

Navy/Marines 

35% 

Air Force 

21% 

Other Defense 

1% 

Top Defense Contractors 

ĞƌďĞƌƵƐĂƉŝƚĂůDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ

hE<ŽƌƉ͘

ĞƚLJĞŶƐ^ŚŝƉLJĂƌĚƐ

EŽƌĨŽůŬƌĞĚŐŝŶŐŽŵƉĂŶLJ

<Z

&EŵĞƌŝĐĂ

^/

^ĐŝĞŶƟĮĐZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽƌƉ͘

KD

h^&ŽŽĚƐ,ŽůĚŝŶŐ

&zϭρ &zϭς &zϭϳ

$2.7 BILLION ςΘ͕ϯΘϭ

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

dŽƉĞĨĞŶƐĞWĞƌƐŽŶŶĞů>ŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ

ŽƵŶƚLJ

ZŝĐŚůĂŶĚ

ŚĂƌůĞƐƚŽŶ

ĞĂƵĨŽƌƚ

ĞƌŬĞůĞLJ

^ƵŵƚĞƌ

'ƌĞĞŶǀŝůůĞ

^ƉĂƌƚĂŶďƵƌŐ

KƌĂŶŐĞďƵƌŐ

zŽƌŬ

&ůŽƌĞŶĐĞ

ĐƚŝǀĞ ŝǀŝůŝĂŶ EĂƟŽŶĂů

ƵƚLJ 'ƵĂƌĚ

ϭϭ͕ςρϯ ϯ͕ϯΘϭ ϯ͕ϭεϭ

ϯ͕εϬϯ κ͕Θϳϯ ΘϬε

ϭϬ͕ςϬς ϭ͕ϮρϬ ϭϬϭ

ς͕Θϯϭ ϯϭς ϭκκ

ρ͕ςκϬ ϳϳϭ ϭϯε

ρΘ Ϯκρ ςΘς

E ϭϭ ϯϮκ

E Ϯκ ϮϭϬ

E ϭε Ϯϳε

ϯϬ E Ϯϯϳ

;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ΨϮϬς͘ϳD

Ψϭρς͘κD

Ψϭρϯ͘ΘD

ΨϭϮκ͘ρD

ΨϭϮϭ͘ϬD

Ψερ͘ρD

ΨΘρ͘ϬD

Ψςε͘ϮD

ΨρϮ͘ϬD

Ψκς͘ϬD

Contract Awards Performed ;LJ&ŝƐĐĂůzĞĂƌ͕ďŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

Ψϯ͘ϯ Ψϯ͘Ϯ Ψϯ͘ϯ Ψϯ͘Ϯ

&zϭϮ &zϭϯ

ΨϮ͘ε

&zϭκ

ΨϮ͘ς ΨϮ͘ς ΨϮ͘ρ

&zϭΘ &zϭε

ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ dŽƚĂů

Ϯ͕Ϭρς ϮϬ͕ϮΘϭ

ϯ͕Ϭϳε ϭϮ͕ςςκ

ρϭ ϭϮ͕ϬϬΘ

E E

ϭρΘ ς͕ϳϬΘ

εϬΘ ϭ͕Θεϳ

ϭϳϯ E

Ϯςϯ E

ϭεϳ E

ϭϮρ E

98 KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ>ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε
SOUTH CAROLINA FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 I S CAL YEAR 2 0 1 8

FISCAL YEAR 2019 

^ƉĂƌƚĂŶďƵƌŐ

>ĞdžŝŶŐƚŽŶ

ĞƌŬĞůĞLJ

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

'ƌĞĞŶǀŝůůĞ

,ŽƌƌLJ

ZŝĐŚůĂŶĚ DĂƌŝŽŶ

^ƵŵƚĞƌ

ĞƌŬĞůĞLJ

ŽƌĐŚĞƐƚĞƌ

ŚĂƌůĞƐƚŽŶ

ĞĂƵĨŽƌƚ

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS ;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐ͕сďŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ŚĂƌůĞƐƚŽŶ

^ƵŵƚĞƌ

ĞƌŬĞůĞLJ

ZŝĐŚůĂŶĚ

ĞĂƵĨŽƌƚ

DĂƌŝŽŶ

'ƌĞĞŶǀŝůůĞ

>ĞdžŝŶŐƚŽŶ

ŽƌĐŚĞƐƚĞƌ

,ŽƌƌLJ

;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

Ψϭ͘ϯ

ΨκΘϭ͘ρD

ΨκϭϬ͘ϭD

ΨϯϬϯ͘ΘD

Ψϭςρ͘κD

Ψϭρς͘κD

Ψϭϭε͘ΘD

Ψεϯ͘εD

Ψϯκ͘εD

ΨϮκ͘ϬD

ŚĂƌůĞƐƚŽŶ

ZŝĐŚůĂŶĚ

^ƵŵƚĞƌ

ĞƌŬĞůĞLJ

ĞĂƵĨŽƌƚ

'ƌĞĞŶǀŝůůĞ

ŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ

>ĞdžŝŶŐƚŽŶ

^ƉĂƌƚĂŶďƵƌŐ

ŝŬĞŶ

Ψϳϯϯ͘ϬD

Ψςςϳ͘ϳD

Ψκϭϳ͘ΘD

ΨϯΘϬ͘ςD

ΨϯϭΘ͘ϮD

ΨρϮ͘ΘD

ΨϭϬ͘ϳD

ΨϭϬ͘ϮD

Ψε͘ϳD

Ψε͘ςD

&ĐƚŝǀĞ &'ƵĂƌĚ &ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ ƌŵLJĐƚŝǀĞ ƌŵLJ'ƵĂƌĚ ƌŵLJZĞƐĞƌǀĞ DĐƚŝǀĞ EĂǀLJĐƚŝǀĞ t,^

>ĞdžŝŶŐƚŽŶ

'ƌĞĞŶǀŝůůĞ

ZŝĐŚůĂŶĚ

ŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ

ŚĂƌůĞƐƚŽŶ

ĞĂƵĨŽƌƚ

ŝŬĞŶ

^ƵŵƚĞƌ

KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ >ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε εε
STATE of North Carolina v. Ronald Valentine HENDRICKSON.

No. 530P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Mark Montgomery, Durham, for Ronald V. Hendrickson.

Steven M. Arbogast, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of September 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5258 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5258

         To suspend temporarily the duty on disperse red 167:1.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2008

   Mr. Watt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on disperse red 167:1.

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

SECTION 1. DISPERSE RED 167:1.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.47 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to disperse red 167:1) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2016104EN.01001001.xml

| 20.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 104/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 104/10

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/604

of 6 April 2016

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Rosée des Pyrénées Catalanes (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain and France's application to register the name ‘Rosée des Pyrénées Catalanes’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain and France's application to register the name ‘Rosée des Pyrénées Catalanes’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Rosée des Pyrénées Catalanes’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Rosée des Pyrénées Catalanes’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Rosée des Pyrénées Catalanes’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.1. Fresh meat (and offal), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 6 April 2016.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 347, 20.10.2015, p. 19.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---