alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          35,636
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,398
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                807038
<PP&E>                                       1,425,938
<DEPRECIATION>                                 270,682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,797,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,298,520
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                         2,196
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,797,744
<SALES>                                        226,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               230,177
<CGS>                                           37,253
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  691,495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (514,324)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 27/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 27/2013 of 15 January 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for forkbeards in EU and international            waters of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 27/2013                     

# of 15 January 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for forkbeards in EU and international waters of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the                        flag of Spain                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 1225/2010 of 13 December 2010 fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels                              for fish stocks of certain deep-sea fish species(2), lays down quotas for 2012.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2012.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 15 January 2013.

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

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 336, 21.12.2010, p. 1.
STATE v. HAITH

No. COA06-621.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Certification Date April 9, 2007.

Appeal from Greene (04CRS52182).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5711 

To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish 

a floor for payment for mammography under the Medicare Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2008 

Mr. WEINER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act to establish a floor for payment for mammography 

under the Medicare Program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Assure Access to Mam5 mography Act of 2008’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5711 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDICARE PAYMENT FLOOR FOR MAMMOGRAPHY. 

2 Section 1848(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

3 1395w–4) is amended by adding at the end the following 

4 new paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(5) PAYMENT FLOOR FOR SCREENING AND DI6 AGNOSTIC MAMMOGRAPHY.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of mam8 mography, whether screening or diagnostic, per9 formed in a year beginning with 2009, the fee 

10 schedule amount shall not be less than the 

11 amount specified in subparagraph (B) for that 

12 year. Such amount shall be subject to geo13 graphic area adjustment in the same manner as 

14 for other physicians’ services under this section. 

15 ‘‘(B) AMOUNT.—The amount specified in 

16 this subparagraph— 

17 ‘‘(i) for 2009 is 115 percent of the fee 

18 schedule amount under this section with 

19 respect to mammography for 2008, in20 creased by the percentage increase in the 

21 MEI (as defined in section 1842(i)(3)) for 

22 2008; and 

23 ‘‘(ii) for a subsequent year is the 

24 amount specified in this subparagraph for 

25 the previous year increased by the percentVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:17 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5711.IH H5711

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5711 IH

1 age increase in the MEI (as so defined) for 

2 such previous year.’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
STATE v. STONEMAN

No. COA06-74

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Guilford (04CRS100472, 04CRS100474, 05CRS24189).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
# L_2013138EN.01000101.xml

| 24.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 138/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 138/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 474/2013

of 7 May 2013

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Salmerino del Trentino (PGI))

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 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 entered into force on 3 January 2013. It repealed and replaced 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 (2).

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Salmerino del Trentino’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Salmerino del Trentino’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).

| (3) | 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, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

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, 7 May 2013.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ C 239, 9.8.2012, p. 9.

3

---

ANNEX

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

ITALY

Salmerino del Trentino (PGI)

---
STATE v. BROWN.

No. COA06-396.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Buncombe (03CRS51017, 03CRS51018, 03CRS51019, 05CRS4883).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the filingof the Quarterly Report of Stonehaven Realty Trust (the “Company”) on Form10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 (the “Report”) with theSecurities and Exchange Commission, I, Duane H. Lund, Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934and

 

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

 

 

 
|                           |   | /s/ Duane H.  Lund       |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                           |   | Duane H.  Lund           |
|                           |   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|                           |   | Chief  Financial Officer |
|                           |   |                     |
| Dated:  November 12, 2002 |   |                     |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5813 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5813

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and eight

                                 An Act

 
  To amend Public Law 110-196 to provide for a temporary extension of 
  programs authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
                       2002 beyond April 18, 2008.

    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 AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS AND 
SUSPENSION OF PERMANENT PRICE SUPPORT AUTHORITIES.
    Effective as of April 18, 2008, section 1 of Public Law 110-196 
(122 Stat. 653) is amended--
        (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the Secretary of 
    Agriculture shall carry out the authorities, until April 18, 2008'' 
    and inserting ``the authorities shall be carried out, until April 
    25, 2008''; and
        (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``April 18, 2008'' and 
    inserting ``April 25, 2008''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
STATE v. Shawn Christopher PORTER.

No. 341P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2006.

Keischa M. Lovelace, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Porter.

Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of June 2006 by Attorney General for extension of time to respond to petition:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 17th day of July 2006 to respond to Petition for Writ of Certiorari. By order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of June 2006."
(August 25, 2005)

#### In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation. Theodore Klopsis, et al., Respondents, v A.O. Smith Water Products Co., et al., Defendants, and The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 388]

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about August 25, 2004, which denied defendant Goodyear’s motion for summary judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered November 22, 2004, which granted Goodyear’s motion to reargue but adhered to the prior ruling, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed as against Goodyear. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Goodyear dismissing the complaint as against it.

The motion court’s decision rested solely on testimony by a deponent who has since died, in a case to which Goodyear was not a party *(see*CFLR 3117 [a] [3] [i]). Evidence that would not be admissible at trial may be considered in opposition to a summary judgment motion only “as long as it does not become the sole basis for the court’s determination” *(see Oken v A.C. & S.,*7 AD3d 285, 285 [2004]).

Reargument granted and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court entered herein on March 3, 2005 (16 AD3d 125 [2005]) is hereby recalled and vacated and a new decision and order substituted therefor. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael McCoy, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[801 NYS2d 176]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), rendered October 31, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in *People v McCoy*(21 AD3d 1275 [2005]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Pine, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00105-CR

MICHAEL BOHANNAN APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

OPINION

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

Appellant Michael Bohannan seeks to appeal the trial court’s dismissal of 

charges filed against him. On March 30, 2011, we notified Appellant and his 

counsel that it appears we lack jurisdiction over this matter because an order 

dismissing charges is not an appealable order, and we advised that this appeal 

could be dismissed unless he, or any party desiring to continue the appeal, filed 

a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before April 11, 

2011. On April 5, 2011, we granted Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw and 
2

informed Appellant of his right to proceed pro se. Appellant timely filed a pro se 

response to our March 30, 2011 letter. We have considered Appellant’s 

response. It does not cite any authority granting us jurisdiction over this appeal.

The rules of appellate procedure provide that a criminal defendant has the 

right to appeal a judgment of guilt or other appealable order. See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(a)(2). Although the State is expressly permitted by statute to appeal an 

order dismissing an indictment, this right of appeal has not been extended to the 

defendant by statute or rule. Consequently, an order dismissing a charging 

instrument is not an appealable order for purposes of rule 25.2(a)(2) if a 

defendant brings the appeal. See Petty v. State, 800 S.W.2d 582, 583–84 (Tex. 

App.––Tyler 1990, no pet.) (applying federal law holding that a dismissal of an 

indictment is not an appealable order and review of a dismissal order must await 

the outcome of a trial). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Skinner v. State, 305 S.W.3d 593, 594 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

LEE GABRIEL

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ.

PUBLISH

DELIVERED: May 26, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5690 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                         June 26, 2008.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
5690) entitled ``An Act to remove the African National Congress from 
treatment as a terrorist organization for certain acts or events, 
provide relief for certain members of the African National Congress 
regarding admissibility, and for other purposes.'', do pass with the 
following

                               AMENDMENT:

            On page 2, strike line 12 through the end of line 21 and 
      insert the following:

    (a) Exemption Authority.--The Secretary of State, after 
consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation 
with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may determine, in 
such Secretary's sole and unreviewable discretion, that paragraphs 
(2)(A)(i)(I), (2)(B), and (3)(B) (other than clause (i)(II)) of section 
212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) shall 
not apply to an alien with respect to activities undertaken in 
association with the African National Congress in opposition to 
apartheid rule in South Africa.

            

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H.R. 5690

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
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
Quarterly Report of CPI International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending January 1, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, O. Joe
Caldarelli, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




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




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






/s/
      O. JOE CALDARELLIO.
      Joe CaldarelliChief
      Executive OfficerFebruary
      10, 2010
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 (Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer)

         In connection with the filing with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission of Ultimate Franchise Systems, Inc.'s (the "Company") Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify (i) in
my capacity as an officer of the Company, (ii) to each of my own respective
actual knowledge, and (iii) solely for the purpose of compliance with 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, that:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of ss.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 final condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate on
April 29, 2005.


ULTIMATE FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC.


By: /s/ Christopher M. Swartz
-------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer &
Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Cruz, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 65]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Braun, J.), rendered April 28, 2003, *968convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), unlawfully operating or driving a motor vehicle on a public highway in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509 (1), making an improper turn in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 (a), and operating a motor vehicle without safety belts in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court’s *Sandoval*ruling *(see People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371, 374-375 [1974]) was a provident exercise of its discretion. The court struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of allowing inquiry about certain of the defendant’s prior convictions and his use of aliases against the potential prejudice to him *(see People v Springer,*13 AD3d 657, 658 [2004]; *People v Sobers,*272 AD2d 418 [2000]; *People v Taylor,*253 AD2d 471 [1998]; *People v Turner,*239 AD2d 447 [1997]). The fact that the defendant may have been the only possible source of testimony for his defense increased the importance of his credibility as well as the importance of his testimony, and did not mandate a ruling prohibiting inquiry about his prior conduct *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203, 208 [2002]). Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.