alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 11788]

# ACTION:

Notice of charter renewal—IDET.

In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the general authority of the Secretary of State and the Department of State, the charter of the International Digital Economy and Telecommunication (IDET) Advisory Committee has been renewed for two years.

The IDET consists of members of the telecommunications industry, including network operators and service providers, equipment vendors, members of academia; members of organizations, institutions, or entities with specific interest in digital economy, digital connectivity, economic aspects of emerging digital technologies, telecommunications, and communications and information policy matters; members of civil society; and officials of interested government agencies. The IDET provides views and advice to the Department of State on positions concerning international digital economy, telecommunications, and information policy matters. This advice has been a major factor in ensuring that the United States was well prepared to participate effectively in the international telecommunications and information policy arena, including the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the Organization of American States Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum Telecommunications and Information Working Group (APEC TELWG), the Group of Seven (G&), the Group of Twenty (G20) Digital Economy Task Force, and relevant standards setting bodies.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                         Please contact the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Daniel Oates, or Brian Mattys at                         *IDET@state.gov*                         or (202) 647-5205, or (202) 878-2010.                    

*Authority:*                         5 U.S.C. Appendix; 22 U.S.C. 2656.                    

Kevin E. Bryant,

Acting Director, Office of Directives Management, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-15341 Filed 7-18-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 6275** 

BRUCE WAYNE KOENIG ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER; ANNE MADDOX; JON GALLEY; BOBBY SHEARIN; KEITH K. ARNOLD; LIEUTENANT HARBAUGH; LIEUTENANT PENNINGTON; CHRISTIAN WEDLOCK ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv
- 03 082

- JFM )

Submitted : June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Bruce Wayne Koenig , Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane

Weber, Assistant Attorney General , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Bruce Wayne Koenig appeals the district court ’ s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint and related claims

.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Koenig v. Maryland , No. 1:13

- cv
- 03082

- JFM (D. Md

. Feb. 19,

2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.2



OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, J. Kernan Crotty, 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/    J. KERNAN CROTTY              
|                        |  |  |  | J. Kernan Crotty                     
|                        |  |  |  | President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                            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 filing of the Quarterly Report of Paragon Real Estate
Equity and Investment Trust (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
September 30, 2003 (the "Report") with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
I, James C. Mastandrea, Chief Executive Officer and I, John J. Dee, Chief
Financial Officer, of the Company, 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 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 result of operations of the
Company.

                                       PARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY AND INVESTMENT
                                       TRUST
                                       By:       /s/ James C. Mastandrea
                                           -------------------------------------
Date: November 5, 2003                            James C. Mastandrea
                                                Chief Executive Officer

                                       PARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY AND INVESTMENT
                                       TRUST
                                       By:       /s/ John J. Dee
                                           -------------------------------------
Date: November 5, 2003                            John J. Dee
                                                Chief Financial Officer

                                      - 1 -
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SHANKAR P. MARAGH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-788

[August 12, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Glenn D. Kelley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

2017CF001512AXXXMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence, except for the imposition 

of $200 for the cost of prosecution, which, as the State concedes, exceeds 

the statutorily authorized minimum of $100. See § 938.27(8), Fla. Stat. 

(2018). As the State presented no evidence justifying the additional 

expense, we reverse pursuant to Bevans v. State, 291 So. 3d 591, 594 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2020) and remand for the trial court to “impose the mandatory 

$100 fee, or to impose further costs if it makes appropriate factual findings 

to support the imposition.”

WARNER and MAY, JJ., and HILAL, JENNIFER, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
LUNDY v. QUALITY BLINDS AND AWNING.

No. COA06-545.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #221045).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# L_2013014DE.01002401.xml

| 18.1.2013 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 14/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2013

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 14/24

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 711/2012 der Kommission vom 3. August 2012 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 185/2010 zur Festlegung von detaillierten Maßnahmen für die Durchführung der gemeinsamen Grundstandards in der Luftsicherheit in Bezug auf die Methoden zur Kontrolle von anderen Personen als Fluggästen und von mitgeführten Gegenständen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 209 vom 4. August 2012
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 209 vom 4. August 2012

Auf Seite 3, im Anhang unter Nummer 1.3.1.6:

anstatt:

„Metalldetektorschleusen“ bzw. „Sicherheitsscanner“

muss es heißen:

„Röntgengeräte“ bzw. „EDS-Geräte“.

---
STATE v. McNEIL

No. COA06-949

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Guilford (05CRS74570).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. BDO SEIDMAN, LLP.

No. 374P06

Supreme Court of North Carolina

August 17, 2006

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 17th day of July 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 17th day of August 2006.
STATE v. COOKE

No. COA06-761.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Certification Date April 9, 2007.

Appeal from Hoke (02CRS50162, 02CRS50163).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
DEANS v. TERRY.

No. COA06-488.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Mecklenburg (01CVD15895).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATION FOUND ON
PAGES 1 & 2 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,614
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                       574
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,007
<PP&E>                                           4,622
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,713
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,049
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,684
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,998
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,763
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,183
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,580
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,580
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.93


</TABLE>
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 639/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 639/2013 of 2 July 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 639/2013                     

# of 2 July 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, 2 July 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.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-13-00124-CV

Style: Xenos Yuen, The Law Offices of Yuen & Associates, P.C.

v. Hung Ho and H.L.L.S.

Date motion filed*: March 29, 2016

Type of motion: Motion to extend time to file reporter’s record

Party filing motion: Court reporter

Document to be filed: Reporter’s record

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: January 28, 2016

Number of previous extensions granted: 1 Current Due date: April 22, 2016

Date Requested: April 20, 2016

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances.

 Denied

 Dismissed as moot

 Other: _____________________________________ 

This appeal was stayed after a notice of bankruptcy was filed and reinstated on December 29, 2015. After 

reinstatement, the reporter’s record was due to be filed on January 28, 2016. This Court granted in part the court

reporter’s motion for extension and extended the time to file a reporter’s record to February 29, 2016. When no 

reporter’s record was filed, we ordered the court reporter to file a reporter’s record no later April 22, 2016, with 

no further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances. On March 29, 2016, the court reporter filed a motion 

requesting an extension to April 20, 2016. We dismiss the motion as moot. The reporter’s record remains due

to be filed no later than April 22, 2016, with no further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually 

Date: April 5, 2016
_________________________________________ 

 

 

___________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135562 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

GARY LEE PETERS, #155318 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v 

MACOMB CIRCUIT COURT, 

 SC: 135562 

 CoA: 281534 

Defendant-Appellee. 

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff-appellant having failed to pay the 

entry fee or to file a motion to waive the fee, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to 

close this file. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 29, 2008 

Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Bobby Daryl McGIRT.

No. 390P06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

Bobby Daryl McGirt, Pro Se.

Michael Reece, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas H. Lock, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 27th day of October 2006 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Lee County:

"Denied by order of the Court in Conference this the 16th day of November 2006."
**Exhibit 11**

 

**PAULA FINANCIAL ANDSUBSIDIARIES**

**Computation of Basicand Diluted Earnings Per Share**

(In thousands, except per share data)

 
|                                                                          |   | **Three  Months Ended  March 31,** |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                          |   | **2004**                           |   | **2003** |   |
|                                                                          |   |                               |   |   |   |
| Net income                                                                    |   | $                                  | 558    |   | $ | 296 |   |
|                                                                          |   |                               |   |   |   |
| Weighted average shares outstanding for  calculating basic earnings per share |   | 6,305,152                          |   | 6,177,212 |   |
|                                                                          |   |                               |   |   |   |
| Options                                                                       |   | 305,764                            |   | 164,724 |   |
|                                                                          |   |                               |   |   |   |
| Total shares for calculating diluted  earnings per share                      |   | 6,610,916                          |   | 6,341,936 |   |
|                                                                          |   |                               |   |   |   |
| Basic earnings per share                                                      |   | $                                  | 0.09   |   | $ | 0.05 |   |
|                                                                          |   |                               |   |   |   |
| Diluted earnings per share                                                    |   | $                                  | 0.08   |   | $ | 0.05 |   |

 

----
In re JACOBS. appealed by Kermedis Jacobs.

No. 122P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 15, 2006.

Kermedis Jacobs, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner (Kermadis Jacobs) on the 14th day of March 2006 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Robeson County:

*668"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th day of March 2006.