alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2013041EN.01001401.xml

| 12.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 41/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/14

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2012 of 2 August 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 208 of 3 August 2012
  )

Page 4, Annex II, fifth entry (‘Bank Tejarat’), third column (‘Reasons’):

for:

‘Bank Tejarat is a partly State owned bank. It has directly facilitated Iran's nuclear efforts. For example, in 2011, Bank Tejarat facilitated the movement of tens of millions of dollars in an effort to assist the UN designated Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran's ongoing effort to acquire yellowcake uranium. The AEOI is the main Iranian organisation for research and development of nuclear technology, and manages fissile material production programs. Bank Tejarat also has a history of assisting designated Iranian banks in circumventing international sanctions, for example acting in business involving UN designated Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group cover companies.’,

read:

‘Bank Tejarat is a partly State-owned bank. It has directly facilitated Iran's nuclear efforts. For example, in 2011, Bank Tejarat facilitated the movement of tens of millions of dollars in an effort to assist the UN designated Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran's (AEOI) ongoing effort to acquire yellowcake uranium. The AEOI is the main Iranian organisation for research and development of nuclear technology, and manages fissile material production programmes. Bank Tejarat also has a history of assisting designated Iranian banks in circumventing international sanctions, for example acting in business involving UN designated Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group cover companies.

Through its financial services to EU designated Bank Mellat and Export Development Bank of Iran (EDBI) in the past few years, Bank Tejarat has also supported the activities of subsidiaries and subordinates of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps, UN designated Defense Industries Organisation and UN designated MODAFL.’.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
The Kroll-O'Gara Company
Cincinnati, Ohio

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of 
the Kroll-O'Gara Company (Forms S-8 Nos. 333-27553, 333-49121, 333-49145, 
333-67721 and 333-74331, and Forms S-3 Nos. 333-56423, 333-67767 and 333-74335) 
of our report dated March 13, 1997 (August 8, 1997 as to Notes 7 and 17 to the 
financial statements) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The 
Kroll-O'Gara Company for the year ended December 31, 1998.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New York, New York
March 31, 1999
In the Matter of D.M.W. appealed by Mecklenburg County DSS.

No. 671PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

J. Edward Yeager, Jr., for Mecklenburg County DSS.

Matt McKay, Attorney Advocate, for Guardian ad Litem.

Richard Croutharmel, for Mother.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner (Mecklenburg County DSS) on the 6th day of December 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd day of March 2006."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1620

WALTER LEE WHITAKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NASH-ROCKY MOUNT BOARD OF EDUCATION, d/b/a Nash-Rocky Mount 

Public Schools; ROBBIN BODDIE-HAGGINS; VICTOR WARD,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:14-cv-00041-BO)

Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Lee Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Dan M. Hartzog, Jr., 

CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Adam 

S. Mitchell, THARRINGTON SMITH LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Lee Whitaker appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to amend his complaint and dismissing his 

complaint for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Whitaker v. NashRocky Mount Bd. of Educ., No. 5:14-cv-00041-BO (E.D.N.C. June 3, 

2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit
31.1**
 
 Certification
Pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
 As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the
 Sarbanes
- Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I, James
A. Coyne, certify that:
 
 1.  I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Professional Lease Management
Income Fund I, L.L.C. (the Registrant).
 
 2.  Based on
my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report.
 
 3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this quarterly 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 quarterly report.
 
 4.  The
Registrant’s other certifying officer 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 have:
 
 a)  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under 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 quarterly 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.
 
 5.  The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a)  all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls 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 controls over financial
reporting.
 
 
 
 
 Date:
August 10, 2005  By:  /s/
James A. Coyne
 James A.
Coyne
 President
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                              PUMA TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                 SUBSIDIARIES                         STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
<S>                                              <C>
PUMATECH International                           California, USA
Puma Technology K.K.                             Japan
IntelliLink Corporation                          New Hampshire, USA
ProxiNet, Inc.                                   Delaware, USA
NetMind Technologies, Inc.                       California, USA
Dry Creek Software                               California, USA
</TABLE>

All subsidiaries of the registrant are wholly-owned.



                                            72
STATE v. KLUTTZ.

COA05-1638.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 21, 2006.

Certification Date December 11, 2006.

Appeal from the Cabarrus (04CRS12677).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Beverly Renea BROWN.

No. 244P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

L. Jayne Stowers, Winston-Salem, for Beverly Renea Brown.

Suenna P. Sumpter, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 10th day of May 2005 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 3rd day of November 2005."

*775Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of May 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 3rd day of November 2005."
Grace River Ranch, LLC [ and

County of La Salle, as third

party defendant]Appellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 1, 2015

N o . 04

- 15

- 00127

- CV

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

Appellant s

v.

GRACE RIVER RANCH, LLC [ and County of La Salle, as third

- party defendant],

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Tex as

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, Justic e

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
Exhibit 31.1



OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas A. Hyde, Jr., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Teletouch Communications, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and 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 officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(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: November 21, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    THOMAS A. HYDE,
JR.
|                        |  |  |  | Thomas A. Hyde, Jr.       
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
STATE v. Eddie Lamar Taylor.

No. 719A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 7, 2006.

Daniel Shatz, Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for Taylor.

William Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Thomas H. Lock, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of September 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Serve Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 13th day of October 2006 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 7th day of September 2006."
STATE v. Kenneth Aaron McNEILL.

No. 212P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2006.

Joan Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas H. Lock, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of April 2006 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of August 2006."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 24, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 49584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16776]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, 
Scientific Advisory Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice is published in accordance with Section 10(a)(2) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The topic of 
the meeting on September 13 is to review continuing research and 
development projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and 
Development Program funds in excess of $1M. The topic of the meetings 
on September 14-15 are to review new start research and development 
projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and Development 
Program funds in excess of $1M. This meeting is open to the public. Any 
interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with 
the Scientific Advisory Board at the time and in the manner permitted 
by the Board.

DATES: September 13, 2005 from 8 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. (continuing research 
and development projects). September 14, 2005 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
(new start research and development projects). September 15, 2005 from 
8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (new start research and development projects).

ADDRESSES: SERDP Program Office, Conference Facility, 901 North Stuart 
Street, Suite 804, Arlington, VA 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Misa Jensen, SERDP Program Office, 
901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA or by telephone at 
(703) 696-2126.

    Dated: August 17, 2005.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05-16776 Filed 8-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1015/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1015/2013 of 22 October 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1015/2013                     

# of 22 October 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 22 October 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
William DAVIS, Employee, Plaintiff v. HARRAH'S CHEROKEE CASINO, Employer Legion Insurance Company, (Now Assigned to the North Carolina Insurance Guaranty Association), Carrier, Defendants.

No. 456A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Allen C. Smith, Andrew S. Culicerto, Charlotte, for Casino, et al.

D. Andrew Turman, Spartanburg, SC, for Davis.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 28th day of August 2006 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th day of August 2006 by Defendants 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."

Defendants shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.

Accordingly, the new brief of the Defendants shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.