alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2013077EN.01000201.xml

| 20.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 77/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 77/2

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 March 2013

establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the International Sugar Council as regards the extension of the International Sugar Agreement 1992

(2013/139/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

The International Sugar Agreement 1992 was concluded by Council Decision 92/580/EEC (1) and entered into force on 1 January 1993 for a period of three years until 31 December 1995. Since then, it has been regularly extended for further periods of two years. It was last extended by decision of the International Sugar Council in June 2011 and remains in force until 31 December 2013. A further extension is in the interest of the Union. The Commission, which represents the Union within the International Sugar Council, should therefore be authorised to vote in favour of such extension,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The position to be taken on behalf of the Union within the International Sugar Council shall be to vote in favour of the extension of the International Sugar Agreement 1992 for a further period of up to two years.

The Commission is hereby authorised to express that position within the International Sugar Council.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 18 March 2013.

For the Council

The President

S. COVENEY

---

(1)  
  OJ L 379, 23.12.1992, p. 15.

1

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6158** 

ANTHONY JOHNSON , Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND , Respondent

– Appellee , and
BOBBY SHEARIN , Respondent
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Deborah K. Chasanow , Chief District Judge. ( 8:10

- cv - 02527

- DKS )

Submitted : April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Anthony Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appelle e.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitution al right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is deb atable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling i s debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CHARTER MEDICAL, LTD. v. ZIGMED, INC.

No. 557A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Norman L. Sloan, Randolph M. James, Winston-Salem, for Zigmed, Inc.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Plaintiff on the 30th day of September 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of November 2005."
Air Force

Army

Navy/Marines

Other Defense

3%

54%

23%

20%

$1.2

$0.8 $0.8 $0.7 $0.7

$1.3

$0.9 $0.9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

57%

10%

22%

10%

Construcon: 9%

Research and

 Development: 4%

Service: 44%

Supplies and

 Equipment: 43%

Acve Duty: 4%

Civilian: 23%

Naonal Guard/

Reserve: 73%

AECOM

Vigor Industrial

EPIC Aviaon

FLIR Systems

Rockwell Collins‐ESA Vision Systems

Galois

Port of Portland

Bay West

Great Lakes Dredge and Dock

A‐dec

$163.8 M

$162.2 M

$58.9 M

$30.8 M

$19.7 M

$17.5 M

$15.4 M

$11.3 M

$10.4 M

$10.1 M

Multnomah

Marion

Klamath

Clackamas

Lane

Umalla

Jackson

Clatsop

Washington

Deschutes

County

4,432

1,611

1,413

1,389

912

502

366

339

304

237

Total*

245

15

103

31

58

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Acve Duty

   Military

1,511

262

346

189

132

166

39

60

12

27

Civilian

 FISCAL YEAR 2017

OREGON

   DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Con ense Con ense Contractors (M=millions)

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

   DEFENSE PERSONNEL

Allocaons, By Type

Allocaons, By Service

$459.5 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

$459.5 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

13,108

TOTAL PERSONNEL

13,108

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Loc sonnel Loc sonnel Locaons

*Total also includes unif al also includes uniformed Na ormed Naonal Guar onal Guard and R d and Reserve units. e units.

Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquision Policy; DoD’s Military Installaons, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;

U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquision Policy; DoD’s Military Installaons, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;

U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

90 Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017
AF Guard Army Guard

OREGON

#42 #51 0.3% $319 #40 #40 #42

$1.3 B

SPENT IN STATE

0.5% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S.

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $0.9 B CONTRACT

SPENDING

13,108 NUMBER

OF PERSONNEL

$0.5 B PERSONNEL

SPENDING

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)(M=millions) (M=millions)

Multnomah County

$206.5 M

Umatlla County

$199.9 M

Clackamas County

$89.7 M

Marion County

$68.9 M

Washington County

$32.9 M

Lane County

$29.3 M

Hood River County

$22.2 M

Clatsop County

$16.1 M

Wasco County

$15.1 M

Yamhill County

$14.5 M

Multnomah

Umatlla

Clackamas

Marion

Washington

Lane

Hood River

Clatsop

Wasco Yamhill

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)(M=millions) (M=millions)

Multnomah County

$201.8 M

Marion County

$59.9 M

Klamath County

$51.3 M

Clackamas County

$32.3 M

Lane County

$23.7 M

Umatlla County

$18.4 M

Wasco County

$12.7 M

Sherman County

$11.1 M

Clatsop County

$7.7 M

Jackson County

$6.9 M

Multnomah

Marion

Klamath

Clackamas

Lane

Umatlla

Wasco

Sherman Clatsop

Jackson

Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017 91
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Merit Systems Protection Board

# AGENCY:

Merit Systems Protection Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of its FY 2019 Service Contract Inventory as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 awarded in FY 2019. The inventory was developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010, by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The OFPP's guidance is available at:                         *https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​omb/​procurement/​memo/​service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf.*                         The MSPB posted its inventory on its website at                         *https://www.mspb.gov/​publicaffairs/​contracting.htm.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                         Tset Wong, Contracting Officer, Office of Finance and Administrative Management, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20419; telephone 202-254-4408; email                         *tset.wong@mspb.gov.*

Jennifer Everling,

Acting Clerk of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2022-15338 Filed 7-18-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7400-01-P
SHEPARD v. OCWEN FEDERAL BANK, et al.

No. 476A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 21, 2005.

Maria D. McIntyre, Charlotte, Chandra T. Taylor, for Wayne & Rosemary Shepard.

William Walt Pettit, Charlotte, Matthew T. McKee, for Ocwen Federal Bank, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of September *6802005 by Plaintiffs for Extension of Time to file Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiffs (Wayne & Rosemary Shepard) shall have up to and including the 11th day of October 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 21st day of September 2005."
Exhibit 24.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDANT AUDITORS


T/F Purifiner, Inc.
Boynton Beach, Florida


      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on  Form  S-8  of  our  report  dated  February  14,  1997 (with respect to last
paragraph  Note 9,  February 26,  1997)  on  the  financial  statements  of  T/F
Purifiner,  Inc.,  (the "Company") as at December  31,  1996 and for each of the
years in the  two-year period then ended, included in the  Company's 1996 Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB.



Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP


New York, New York
March 24, 1997
| | Exhibit 10.19
| | -------------



|CLOSING CERTIFICATE
|-------------------



|OF
|--



|GLOBAL GREEN SOLUTIONS INC.
|---------------------------

The undersigned do hereby represent and certify that:

1. This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 8.3(d) of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February ___, 2007, by and among Global Green Solutions Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Corporation), Greensteam Acquisition Company Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the Corporation (Sub), Greensteam Development Inc., a Delaware corporation (Greensteam), the Greensteam shareholders identified as such on the signature page hereto (the Greensteam Shareholders), and Raymond T. Pirraglia, as the initial Representative (the Agreement).

2. The conditions set forth in Section 8.2(a), (b) and ( c) of the Agreement to be fulfilled by the Corporation and Sub have been fulfilled.

3. The persons named below have been duly elected and qualified as, and are now, officers of the Corporation, holding the office or offices in the Corporation set forth below opposite their respective names, and the signatures set forth below opposite their respective names are their genuine signatures:

|NAME                  | OFFICES | SIGNATURE        
|--------------------- | ------- | -----------------
|                      |         |                  
|President             |         | J. DOUGLAS FRATER
|                      |         |                  
|Chairman of the Board |         | ELDON SCHORN     
|                      |         |                  
|Secretary             |         | ROBERT M. BAKER  

4. Terms used herein and not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Merger has been duly executed as of this 23rdday of February, 2007.

GLOBAL GREEN SOLUTIONS INC.By:J. DOUGLAS FRATERJ. Douglas Frater, President



---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

No. 08

- 14

- 00223

- CR

IN RE: DOUGLAS WAYNE JENKINS, §

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDI NG

Relator. §

IN MANDAMUS

§

§

§

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

against the Honorable Pedro Gomez, Judge of the 112th District Court of Pecos County, Texas

,

and concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny

the petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

[BELDEN CDT LOGO]                                      BELDEN CDT INC.
                                                       7701 FORSYTH BOULEVARD
                                                       SUITE 800
                                                       ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63105
                                                       TELEPHONE: (314) 854-8000
                                                       FACSIMILE: (314) 854-8001

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

May 17, 2005

Mr. C. Baker Cunningham
6424 Cecil Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63105

Dear Baker:

The terms of your retention award letter agreement (the "Retention Letter
Agreement"), dated as of June 28, 2004, are amended as follows:

   -  If you were to retire from Belden CDT Inc. (the "Company") before July 15,
      2006, the unpaid cash award under your Retention Letter Agreement will be
      paid upon your retirement, and the unvested portion of the restricted
      stock award under your letter agreement will vest upon your retirement.

   -  All other unvested restricted stock and stock options will vest upon your
      retirement, whether before or after July 15, 2006.

BELDEN CDT INC.

By: /s/ Kevin Bloomfield
    -----------------------------
    Kevin Bloomfield

Agreed:

    /s/ C. Baker Cunningham
    -----------------------------
    C. Baker Cunningham
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 of MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc.(the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Frank M. Semple, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ FRANK M. SEMPLE      |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |
| Frank M. Semple          |
| Chief Executive  Officer |
|                     |
| October 20,  2005   |

 

 

Thiscertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.  This certification shall notbe deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to liabilityunder that section.  This certificationshall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except to the extentthis Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated by referencein any such filing.

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT
32
  
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Carol K.
Nelson, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Lars H. Johnson, Chief
Financial Officer of Cascade Financial Corporation (the "Corporation"), each
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:
 
 1.
              The
      Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarterly period ended September 30,
      2008 (the "Form 10-Q"), fully complies with 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of the
      Corporation.
 
 This
certification is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 and is not
being filed as part of this quarterly report.
 
 
 Date:
November 7, 2008
 
 
 /s/ Carol K.
Nelson
 Carol K.
Nelson, President and CEO
 
 
 /s/ Lars H.
Johnson
 Lars H.
Johnson, Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


              Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

The Board of Directors
Roadhouse Grill, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement No.
333-30593 on Form S-8 of Roadhouse Grill, Inc. of our report dated June 4, 1999,
except as to Note 2 which is as of August 1, 2001, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Roadhouse Grill, Inc. and subsidiaries as of April 25, 1999
and April 26, 1998 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the fifty-two weeks ended
April 25, 1999, the seventeen weeks ended April 26, 1998 and each of the
fifty-two weeks ended December 28, 1997 and December 26, 1996 which report
appears in the April 25, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Roadhouse Grill,
Inc.

As discussed in Note 2, the consolidated balance sheets as of April 25, 1999
and April 26, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the fifty-two weeks ended
April 25, 1999 have been restated.



/KPMG LLP/

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
August 14, 2001
STATE of North Carolina v. Shakur Abdul SHABAZZ.

No. 439P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Shakur Abdul Shabazz, Pro Se.

Ashby T. Ray, Assistant Attorney General, William D. Kenerly, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 16th day of August 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."
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6598** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ADELSON MICHEL, a/k/a Cowboy, a/k/a Mike , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Abingdon
. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. ( 5:06

- cr - 00041

- GEC

- 1 ; 5:10

- cv - 80281

- GEC

- BWC )

Submitted : September 17, 2012 Decided: October 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Adelson Michel , Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Harrisonburg, Virginia; Joseph W. H. Mott, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES A TTORNEY , Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Adelson Michel seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The orde r is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Sl ack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and tha t the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Michel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appea lability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Connecticut Indemnity Insurance Company, Appellant, and John Laperla, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 180]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Michael E. Daley, J.), entered October 7, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order denied petitioner’s application.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding commenced pursuant to CPLR article 75, Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying petitioner’s application for an order staying the underinsured motorist arbitration sought by respondent, pending discovery. The record establishes that “petitioner . . . had ample time . . . within which to seek discovery of the *1263respondent insured as provided for in the insurance policy, and unjustifiably failed to utilize that opportunity” to obtain the discovery now sought *(Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Urena,*208 AD2d 623, 623 [1994]; *see e.g. Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Gershovich,*1 AD3d 364 [2003]; *Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v Smith,*255 AD2d 386 [1998]; *Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Faulk,*250 AD2d 674 [1998]; *cf. Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Almeida,*266 AD2d 547 [1999]; *Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Keeney,*241 AD2d 455, 456 [1997]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Pine, JJ.