alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2013162EN.01000901.xml

| 14.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 162/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/9

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 17 May 2013

designating the European Capital of Culture for the year 2017 in Denmark and in Cyprus and the European Capital of Culture for the year 2018 in Malta

(2013/286/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Decision No 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019 (1), and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,

Having regard to the selection panel reports of September 2012 regarding the selection process of the European Capitals of Culture in Denmark and Cyprus,

Having regard to the selection panel report of November 2012 regarding the selection process of the European Capital of Culture in Malta,

Whereas:

Considering that the criteria referred to in Article 4 of Decision No 1622/2006/EC are entirely fulfilled,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Aarhus and Paphos are designated as ‘European Capital of Culture 2017’ respectively in Denmark and Cyprus.

Valletta is designated as ‘European Capital of Culture 2018’ in Malta.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 17 May 2013.

For the Council

The President

R. QUINN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 304, 3.11.2006, p. 1.

1

---
‘, ,
,"The tern 'store*as used in this Act shall, be qonstrued **to man**  and include any store or stores or any aercnntileeotnblishmat or ostablishzents 'not spealfically axmpted wLth.iin this Xot whiich are owned, opsrateil, n:eintaincd,~or controlled - by the ~(1~8

person, agent, rocsioer,trustee, fira, 'aorporation,

copnrtnorship

or nssoaiation,either

. dorcastL0 or forel2n, in ~Aich g03do, **mre3** or mero!mndise of an7 kind are sald,,otretafl or-?~holerole.w
**In** the recent cnse of Euiurt v. Coopor, 130 TBX. 453; 110 s. 3. (2d) 896, the 5upr'ezo Court of Talons

huld the entire net, aonotitutional

aad indicatedt:lat tXo,definitlon of the word "store"would control in construlng~the act. The aourt said: *The statutehairin+ defined the ~013, ve are mt .4 ccncarnodt3,th

its usual imminj:." :i'ethlhi: t!iEt t3.c otoro ym rolzr ta in your latter io covorod5~ ttio

definitionin ;:cctIo:~ 7, mlecs it is ~s~zciP:cnlly exsxptcd"in so:?u ot!xr pwt of th statuto. .I The orexptionsnm set out in Smticn 5 of the :ict, nnd t:ie-only

pnrt of Lootion 5 that could possibly be csnsidorodns 3oply+t;,

to the store in question in that pm% which reads as fnll-ws: Vrovided thot the term, *stwo, stems, mwoentlle establisiizn,o~t

or rrorcantilo

es~tnbl.is!mx0x4

w:lorovcr used in thie r~ct

sh?LLl

not inclu&: r:ii~l~:o~lu and/or retail luber n:ld

build& ~;-.ntorP&l

businosscsengaged exclu~ivolyin the salu cf llccbzr snd building xttorial; . . .-

- .i:r.Vi. D. Lane, J&wary 9, 193Q,'Pa&x'2
,‘fl & Gas co., 102 ::. -<a. 374, 135 2. 2. 39’3, the su~xx3~e

Court of Appeals 0r ;:lost 'r'?rg;lnio

aaidt ,Vorda are to bo given their ordlntiry nm3 popular mnnfnr;; unl-ss they have acyui:sd3 ~aculiar Significnnce. . . . !i%a rord-~exciuoively~ is synonymus with t?.c

m.rde 'only'ond '5ole1y' . It 13 a **vxbrd** or raatriotlonand exclusion." In 23 Corpus Juris 274, It is said: _

In -view

of :he wordin of the ntatuto and the nuthorities tknthave construedsuch y:ords, o'lr enswcr,toyour question io ns **f.-)llGYG** 1 A atom ,mlliw~ approximtolg G5-;J 3f itc ~;ross

rocoi2t.s in rctail lwbnr md buildfn:; xitoriels, r.nd

the 'Jalanoo

ln fzm .x!chincry,

::ordaaro

end harventin~su;~~liuo, is subject to and licble for tlia

"ohnfn store tax".

& k’eursvary truly
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 INTERNATIONAL CONSOLIDATED COMPANIES,
INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Antonio F. Uccello, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and





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





Dated:  August 19,
2008





/s/
Antonio F. Uccello, III


Antonio
F. Uccello, III


Chief
Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.4
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, David L. Sokol, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MidAmerican Funding, LLC;
 
 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 officers 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)) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be 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 is being 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 this report 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 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 officers 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial 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 significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: May 4, 2004
 /s/ David L. Sokol
 David L. Sokol
 Chief Executive Officer
STATE v. McCLAIN

No. COA05-438

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Union (02CRS51377).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
SCWC-13-0002957

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

LORI LEE TURPING, 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. 

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0002957; 1DTA-13-00639)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Lori Lee Turping’s

Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on April 16, 2015, is

hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 20, 2015.

Craig W. Jerome

for petitioner

Brian R. Vincent

for respondent

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0002957

20-MAY-2015

01:29 PM
Grace River Ranch, LLC [ and 

County of La Salle, as thirdparty defendant]Appellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 1, 2015

No. 04-15-00127-CV

EL CABALLERO RANCH, INC. a/k/a El Caballero, LLC and Laredo Marine, LLC,

Appellants

v.

GRACE RIVER RANCH, LLC [ and County of La Salle, as third-party defendant],

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-04-00108-CVL

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The appellee’s 

brief is due on June 18, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of June, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5569 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5569

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To extend for 5 years the EB-5 regional center pilot program, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EB-5 REGIONAL CENTER PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 610(b) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 
1153 note) is amended by striking ``shall set aside'' and all that 
follows through ``eligible for admission'' and inserting ``shall set 
aside 3,000 visas annually for 20 years to include such aliens as are 
eligible for admission''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of the Congress that, to the extent practicable, 
qualifying investments under section 610 of the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) should be made in 
targeted employment areas (as defined in section 203(b)(5)(B)(ii) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(B)(ii))), 
including rural areas (areas other than an area within a metropolitan 
statistical area or within the outer boundary of any city or town 
having a population of 20,000 or more (based on the most recent 
decennial census of the United States)) and high unemployment areas 
(areas that have experienced unemployment of at least 150 percent of 
the national average rate).

            Passed the House of Representatives June 9, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5569

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To extend for 5 years the EB-5 regional center pilot program, and for 
                            other purposes.
```
exv10w11



 






Exhibit 10.11



Summary of Individual Performance Goals for Senior Management Incentive Plan



On
August 1, 2005, the Management Development/Compensation
Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors
(“Compensation Committee”) approved the 2005 individual
performance goals for the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”)
and the 2005 individual performance goals for the Named Executive
Officers (“NEOs”) and certain other senior management
personnel, under the Senior Management Incentive Plan (the
“Senior MIP”). The individual performance goals for the
CEO and NEOs consist of the officer performing or attaining
specific, defined tasks and strategies, including customer service
and satisfaction, organizational strengths and efficiencies, and
return on invested capital. These individual performance goals are
intended to complement the overall Company financial performance
goals under the Senior MIP and are consistent with the performance
measures established under the Management Incentive Plan, of which
the Senior MIP is a component, the material terms of which were
previously approved by the Company’s stockholders. The
achievement of the individual performance goals could account for up
to 25% of the total maximum annual incentives earned by the CEO and
the NEOs for 2005.
STATE v. Twanprece N. IVEY.

No. 458PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2005.

Clinton C. Hicks, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of December 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Twanprece N. Ivey) shall have up to and including the 20th day of December 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 1st day of December 2005."
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 24, 2011

t0516 

# Order

May 24, 2011

140847

TERRIE TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 140847 COA: 287565 MTT: 00-321766 CITY OF TRAVERSE CITY, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of June 28, 2010, the applic ation for leave to appeal was held in abeyance pending the decision in Klooster v City of Charlevoix (Docket No. 140423). On order of the Court, the case having b een decided on March 10, 2011, 488 Mich 289 (2011), the application is again considered , and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Patrick J. Lynch, as President of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., Appellant, v Office of Labor Relations of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

[802 NYS2d 13]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered August 6, 2004, which dismissed this proceeding to compel compliance with subpoenas duces tecum served in February 2004, without prejudice to reinstatement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court erred in concluding that our prior decision in *Matter of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y. v City of New York*(293 AD2d 253 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 608 [2002]) deprived it of jurisdiction under CPLR 2308 (b) to compel compliance with petitioner’s nonjudicial subpoenas. However, the petition was properly dismissed since the dispute was not ripe for adjudication. In a proper exercise of discretion, the court recognized that no judicial determination as to relevance of subpoenaed material could be made until the New York City Board of Collective Bargaining framed the issues to be considered in this proceeding, which challenges the Police Depart*832ment’s designation of detective specialists. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 52 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 52

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the cap on the 
 cover over of tax on distilled spirits to Puerto Rico and the Virgin 
                                Islands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

 Mrs. Christensen introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the cap on the 
 cover over of tax on distilled spirits to Puerto Rico and the Virgin 
                                Islands.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CAP ON COVER OVER OF TAX ON DISTILLED SPIRITS TO 
              PUERTO RICO AND VIRGIN ISLANDS.

    (a) In General.--Section 7652 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to limitation on cover over of tax on distilled spirits) is 
amended by striking subsection (f) and by redesignating subsections (g) 
and (h) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7652(f) of such Code (as so 
redesignated) is amended by striking ``subsection (f) of this section'' 
in paragraph (1)(B) and inserting ``section 5001(a)(1)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on January 1, 2007.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 6.1 **

****  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 annual report on Form 40-F of Virginia Mines Inc. for the year ended February 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

> 
1. The annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

2. The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. 

Date: May 26, 2009 

  

/s/ *André Gaumond*André Gaumond President and Chief Executive Officer 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2015

No. 04-14-00913-CV

David MEDRANO,

Appellant

v.

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Successor by Merger Lawyers 

Title Insurance Corporation, Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc. d.b.a HOMEQ, as servicing Agent 

for Duetsche Bnk. National Trust Company as Trustee,

Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CI-00027

The Honorable Richard E. Price, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due June 19, 2015; however, the court granted appellant 

an extension of time until July 20. Appellant has filed a motion asking for an additional thirtyday extension of time to file the brief. 

We grant the motion and order appellant’s brief due August 19, 2015. Appellant is 

advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion that (1) 

demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the 

efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable 

assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5589 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5589

  To modify the project for navigation, Atchafalaya River and Bayous 
Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, to include an additional area, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2008

 Mr. Melancon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To modify the project for navigation, Atchafalaya River and Bayous 
Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, to include an additional area, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF, AND BLACK, 
              LOUISIANA.

    The project for navigation, Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, 
Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), and modified by section 3077 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1126), is further 
modified to authorize the Secretary of the Army--
            (1) to include as part of the project the portion of the 
        Lower Atchafalaya River known as the ``Crewboat Cut'', located 
        south of the convergence of Bayou Chene into the Atchafalaya 
        River and east of the authorized part of the channel known as 
        the ``Horseshoe''; and
            (2) to carry out projects for bank stabilization on the 
        eastern shore of Crewboat Cut to prevent erosion from wave 
        action and scouring.
                                 <all>
```