alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services            and network functions (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013                     

# of 3 May 2013

# laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions

# (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 of 11 February 2019 laying down a performance and charging scheme in the                                 single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013 (Text with EEA relevance.).
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 577 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 577

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 3903 South Congress Avenue in Austin, Texas, as the ``Sergeant Henry 
                   Ybarra III Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 2007

Mr. Doggett (for himself, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. 
   Burgess, Mr. Carter, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Culberson, Mr. 
Edwards, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Granger, Mr. Al Green of Texas, 
    Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. 
Hinojosa, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, 
  Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Marchant, Mr. McCaul of 
  Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Paul, Mr. Poe, Mr. Reyes, Mr. 
   Rodriguez, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Smith of Texas, and Mr. Thornberry) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 3903 South Congress Avenue in Austin, Texas, as the ``Sergeant Henry 
                   Ybarra III Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT HENRY YBARRA III POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3903 South Congress Avenue in Austin, Texas, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sergeant Henry Ybarra III Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
Henry Ybarra III Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 416/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 416/2013 of 6 May 2013 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities            guaranteed (Moules de bouchot (TSG))         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 416/2013                     

# of 6 May 2013

# entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Moules de bouchot (TSG))

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)Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 entered into force on 3 January 2013. It repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006                              of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed(2).

(2)Pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Moules de bouchot’ was                              published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3).

(3)As no statement of objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name                              should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# Article 2U.K.

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 May 2013.

*For the Commission*                            

*The President*                            

José Manuel Barroso                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.7.****Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom**U.K.

#### FRANCEU.K.

Moules de bouchot (TSG)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 1.                           

3

OJ C 239, 9.8.2012, p. 13.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3035 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3035

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
                                 1965.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

    (a) Extension of Programs.--Section 2(a) of the Higher Education 
Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is 
amended by striking ``May 31, 2008'' and inserting ``June 30, 2008''.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section, or in the 
Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be 
construed to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations of 
appropriations for, or the durations of, programs contained in the 
amendments made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 
(Public Law 109-171), by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act 
(Public Law 110-84), or by the Ensuring Continued Access to Student 
Loans Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-227) to the provisions of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004.

            Passed the Senate May 20, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3035

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
                                 1965.
```
ENVIROSAFE PAINTS, INC. v. CONKLIN

No. COA04-1234

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Wake (03CVS1917).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Randy Lynn ATKINS.

No. 9A94-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 24, 2006.

Sandra Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*837The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of April 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Certiorari Petition:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of April 2006."
IN RE D.G.D.

No. COA05-1245.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 18, 2006.

Certification Date May 8, 2006.

Appeal from the Forsyth, (02J243).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Jerry Wayne CONNER.

No. 219A91-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 14, 2006.

Kenneth Rose, Durham, Mark Kleinschmidt, for Jerry W. Conner.

Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of October 2006 by Attorney General Motion to Vacate Stay of Execution:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 14th day of December 2006."
STATE v. Eddie Lamar TAYLOR.

No. 719A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2006.

Daniel Shatz, Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for Eddie Lamar 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 3rd day of November 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Serve the Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 13th day of December 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 8th day of November 2006."
Roger Warren CLARK v. Wayne TALBERT, Superintendent Hyde Correctional Center.

No. 635P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 28, 2006.

Roger Warren Clark, Pro Se.

*693Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Talbert.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Plaintiff on the 13th day of December 2006 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Cabarrus County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th day of December 2006."
SOUTHEASTERN OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC. v. LAWSON

No. COA04-1545

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Sampson (04CVS825).

Cases reported without published opinion. Reversed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Certification of CFO



In connection with the Quarterly Report of KH Funding Company (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Louise B. Sehman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                                                 
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2005 |  | /s/ Louise B. Sehman                            
|                         |  | Louise B. Sehman                                
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer



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 Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-QSB pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
WALDON v. BURRIS

No. COA06-325.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 16, 2007.

Certification Date February 5, 2007.

Appeal from Union (01CVS1455).

Case reported without published opinion. Remanded in part, affirmed in part.
#### Rose Arroyo, Appellant, v Antonios Feggoudakis et al., Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 846]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated January 23, 2002, which denied her motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the defendants’ default in answering, and granted the defendants’ cross motion to extend their time to answer and to compel her to accept their late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a judgment upon the defendants’ default in answering and granting the defendants’ cross motion to extend their time to answer and to compel the plaintiff to accept their late answer *(see Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v Andersen & Co.,*60 NY2d 693, 695 [1983]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
WOODLIEF v. MECKLENBURG COUNTY.

No. 161P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Robert Hagemann, Senior Assistant City Attorney, for Mecklenburg County, et al.

William H. Sturges, Charlotte, for Insite Engineering, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of April 2006 by Plaintiff to Dismiss Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of May 2006."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3029 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3029

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
 Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, 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. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAMS 
              UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 
              INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958.

    (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to extend 
temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business Administration'', 
approved October 10, 2006 (Public Law 109-316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most 
recently amended by section 1 of Public Law 110-136 (121 Stat. 1453), 
is amended by striking ``May 23, 2008'' each place it appears and 
inserting ``March 20, 2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on May 22, 2008.

            Passed the Senate May 15, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3029

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
 Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and 
                          for other purposes.
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012 (the Report) of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, GREGORY W. HUNT, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant.



| |  |                        |  | 
| |  | ---------------------- |  | 
| |  |                       
| |  | /s/ GREGORY W. HUNT    |  | 
| |  | Name: Gregory W. Hunt  |  | 
| |  | Date: November 8, 2012 |  | 



63
# L_2012175EN.01000501.xml

| 5.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 175/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 175/5

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 588/2012

of 3 July 2012

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Kalocsai fűszerpaprika-őrlemény (PDO)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and having regard to Article 17(2) thereof, Hungary's application to register the name ‘Kalocsai fűszerpaprika-őrlemény‧ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and having regard to Article 17(2) thereof, Hungary's application to register the name ‘Kalocsai fűszerpaprika-őrlemény‧ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

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, 3 July 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 303, 14.10.2011, p. 16.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.8.   other products of Annex I of the Treaty (spices etc.)

HUNGARY

Kalocsai fűszerpaprika-őrlemény (PDO)

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Johnnie Dee ALLEN.

No. 532P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

Johnnie Dee Allen, Pro Se.

Edwin W. Welch, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael Nifong, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of October 2006 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 16th day of November 2006."
#### In the Matter of Justina Timosa, Appellant, v William Chase, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 575]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Heffernan, J.), dated September 8, 2004, which, after a hearing, inter alia, awarded custody of the parties’ child to the father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Custody determinations are to be made upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances to reach the disposition that *1116promotes the best interests of the child *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; § 240 [1] [a]; *Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). This requires an evaluation of the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties, which generally “can best be made by the trial court which has direct access to the parties and can supplement that information with whatever professionally prepared reports are necessary” *(Eschbach v Eschbach, supra*at 173). The findings of the hearing court are therefore to be afforded the greatest respect and are only to be disturbed if they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Eschbach v Eschbach, supra; Matter of Mutterperl v Reyes,*293 AD2d 542, 543 [2002]).

The mother’s contention that the Family Court erred in considering the findings of the court-ordered reports is unpreserved for appellate review *(see Matter of Diaz v Santiago,*8 AD3d 562, 563 [2004]). In any event, the Family Court, with the consent of the parties, properly considered the reports, which recommended that custody of the child be given to her father *(see Aberbach v Aberbach,*33 NY2d 592, 593 [1973]).

Moreover, the court assessed the credibility of the parties in favor of the father and determined that an award of sole custody to the father was in the best interests of the child. This finding was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed *(see Eschbach v Eschbach, supra*at 174).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.P., Crane, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.