alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 580

AN ACT

To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to 

provide for a 120-day limit to the term of a United 

States attorney appointed on an interim basis by the 

Attorney General, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 580 EH

1 SECTION 1. INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES 

2 ATTORNEYS. 

3 Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is 

4 amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the fol5 lowing new subsections: 

6 ‘‘(c) A person appointed as United States attorney 

7 under this section may serve until the earlier of—

8 ‘‘(1) the qualification of a United States attor9 ney for such district appointed by the President 

10 under section 541 of this title; or 

11 ‘‘(2) the expiration of 120 days after appoint12 ment by the Attorney General under this section. 

13 ‘‘(d) If an appointment expires under subsection 

14 (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a 

15 United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. 

16 The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with 

17 the clerk of the court. 

18 ‘‘(e) This section is the exclusive means for appoint19 ing a person to temporarily perform the functions of a 

20 United States attorney for a district in which the office 

21 of United States attorney is vacant.’’. 

22 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by this 

24 Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 

25 Act. 

26 (b) APPLICATION.—
3

•HR 580 EH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Any person serving as a 

2 United States attorney on the day before the date of 

3 the enactment of this Act who was appointed under 

4 section 546 of title 28, United States Code, for a 

5 district may serve until the earlier of—

6 (A) the qualification of a United States at7 torney for that district appointed by the Presi8 dent under section 541 of that title; or 

9 (B) 120 days after the date of the enact10 ment of this Act. 

11 (2) EXPIRED APPOINTMENTS.—If an appoint12 ment expires under paragraph (1)(B), the district 

13 court for the district concerned may appoint a 

14 United States attorney for that district under sec15 tion 546(d) of title 28, United States Code, as added 

16 by this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 26, 

2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 580

AN ACT

To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States 

other purposes.terim basis by the Attorney General, and for of a United States attorney appointed on an inCode, to provide for a 120-day limit to the term
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Business
Objects S.A. Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and Statements of Operations
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          80,898
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,682
<INVENTORY>                                        349
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,065
<PP&E>                                          27,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,899
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,509
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,267
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,357
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,133
<SALES>                                         49,508
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,508
<CGS>                                            9,091
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,542
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 571
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,446
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,233
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,213
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,213
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
IN RE H.S.M.

No. COA05-1483.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Buncombe (04J236, 04J237).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.4 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Thomas E. Legro, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of for the quarter
ended March 31, 2004 Selkirk Cogen Funding Corporation;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 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; andc)
    
    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 officers 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 the 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; andb)
    
    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: May 11, 2004 /s/ THOMAS E. LEGROThomas E. LegroVice President, Controller and Chief
Accounting Officer
Selkirk Cogen Funding Corporation
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Dedrick Paxton CRUMP.

No. 474P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Dedrick Paxton Crump.

David L. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: 178 N.C.App. 717, 632 S.E.2d 233.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 5th day of September 2006 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 27th day of June 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of September 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:

*852"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANAPR06-0422INTHEMATTEROFTHEPETITIONOFMICHELLEWELTMANJUL272',',21Bp\tvnGrenvvood()RD'c'E---RcfCourtMichelleWeltmanhaspetitionedtheCourttowaivethethree-yeartestrequirementfortheMultistateProfessionalResponsibilityExamination(MPRE)forpurposesofWeltman'sapplicationforadmissionbymotiontotheStateBarofMontana.Byrule,applicantsforadmissionbymotionmustprovideevidenceoftherequisitescoreonanMPREtaken"withinthreeyearsprecedingthedateoftheapplicationforadrnission."RuleIV.A.3,RulesofAdmission.WeltmanpassedtheMPREin2010whenseekingadmissiontothepracticeoflawinIllinois,whereWeltmanwasadmitted.WeltinanhasalsobeenadrnittedtothepracticeoflawintheStateofMissouri.ThepetitionstatesWeltmanhas"practicedlawwithoutanyethicalordisciplinaryissuesinanyofthejurisdictions."Goodcauseappearing,ITISHEREBYORDEREDthatthepetitionofMichelleWeltmantowaivethethree-yeartestrequirementfortheMPREforpurposesofWeltman'scurrentapplicationforadmissionbyrnotiontotheStateBarofMontanaisGRANTED.TheClerkshallmailacopyofthisordertoPetitionerandtotheAdministratoroftheBoardofBarExaminesattheStateBarofMontana.DATEDthisdayofJuly,2021.ChiefJustice07/27/2021Case Number: PR 06-0422‘e,742—,17—&-,o&I`i.Justices2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>	   		5
<CIK>               000929540
<NAME>              SELKIRK COGEN PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>	 	1,000
       
<S>				                  				<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>						            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>					        	Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>			          				Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>				            	    Jun-30-1998
<CASH>				                		    1366
<SECURITIES>						            0
<RECEIVABLES>						           	17192
<ALLOWANCES>						            0
<INVENTORY>							            5092
<CURRENT-ASSETS>			         			34912
<PP&E>							                371299
<DEPRECIATION>						          	56080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>          						385984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>	     				    16362
<BONDS>								            383932
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>			     	     	0
<PREFERRED>							           	0
<COMMON>							            0
<OTHER-SE>							            (29095)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>			        385984
<SALES>								            82526
<TOTAL-REVENUES>					         	82526
<CGS>								            56878
<TOTAL-COSTS>						           	56878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>					         	3000
<LOSS-PROVISION>					         	0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>					         	16134
<INCOME-PRETAX>					         		6514
<INCOME-TAX>						            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>			      			    6514
<DISCONTINUED>					          		0
<EXTRAORDINARY>			         				0
<CHANGES>							            0
<NET-INCOME>            					    6514
<EPS-PRIMARY>						           	0
<EPS-DILUTED>						           	0
        

</TABLE>
# L_2015028EN.01004801.xml

| 4.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 28/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 28/48

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) No 1220/2012 of 3 December 2012 on trade related measures to guarantee the supply of certain fishery products to Union processors from 2013 to 2015, amending Regulations (EC) No 104/2000 and (EU) No 1344/2011

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 349 of 19 December 2012
  )

On page 7, Annex, Order No 09.2792, third column ‘TARIC Code’:

for:

‘
  1111
  ’

read:

‘
  11
  ’

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 247/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 247/2013 of 19 March 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 247/2013                     

# of 19 March 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, 19 March 2013.

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

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*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.
STATE of North Carolina v. Lewis Deon PARTRIDGE.

No. 570P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

James R. Parish, Fayetteville, for Partridge.

A. Danielle Marquis, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 3rd day of November 2006 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of May 2007."
MORGAN v. LEXINGTON FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.

No. COA06-1.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 19, 2006.

Certification Date January 8, 2007.

Appeal from Davidson (05CVS2484).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
January 30, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DAVID H. DORSEY AND GERALDINE DORSEY , Appellant s
NO. 14

- 14

- 00041

- CV V.

STATE FARM LLOYDS , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellants ’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on October 14, 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this app eal. We further order that mandate be issued immediately. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 613/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 613/2013 of 25 June 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 as regards additional active            substances of biocidal products to be examined under the review programme (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 613/2013                     

# of 25 June 2013

# amending Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 as regards additional active substances of biocidal products to be examined under the                        review programme (repealed)                     

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 of 4 August 2014 on the work programme for the systematic examination of                                 all existing active substances contained in biocidal products referred to in Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament                                 and of the Council Text with EEA relevance.
# Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity            Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the            Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (2013/714/EU)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council

# of 11 September 2013

# on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of                        17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management                     

# (2013/714/EU)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission                           on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1), and in particular point 26 thereof,                        

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund(2),                        

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the ‘Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions                              struck by disasters.

(2)The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

(3)Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

(4)Slovenia, Croatia and Austria have submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning a flooding disaster,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised                     to provide the sum of EUR 14 607 942 in commitment and payment appropriations.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall be published in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

Done at Strasbourg, 11 September 2013.

*For the European Parliament*                            

*The President*                            

M. Schulz                            

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

V. Leškevičius                            

1

OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 21.1
On Command Corporation

Subsidiaries
------------

    On Command Video Corporation
    On Command Development Corporation
    SpectraVision, Inc.
    On Command Canada, Inc.
    SpectraVision Barbados
    Kalevision Sytems, Inc.
    Spectradyne of Bahamas
    Spectradyne of Bermuda
    Spectradyne of Texas
    Spectradyne of GMBH
    Spectradyne International, Inc.
    On Command Hong Kong, Limited
    On Command Australia Pty Limited
    Spectradyne Singapore Pte Limited
    On Command (Thailand) Limited
STATE v. HOWARD.

No. COA05-1152.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 15, 2006.

Certification Date September 5, 2006.

Appeal from Pitt (03CRS11305, 03CRS16577, 04CRS12050, 04CRS59044, 04CRS59045, 04CRS59046, 04CRS59047, 04CRS59048, 04CRS59049, 04CRS59050, 04CRS59051, 04CRS59052, 04CRS59053, 04CRS59054, 04CRS59055).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
STATE v. John Scott BADGETT.

No. 522A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 27, 2005.

Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of July 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 29th day of July 2005 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 27th day of July 2005."
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                       InKine Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of InKine Pharmaceutical
Company, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Leonard S. Jacob, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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.



Date: August 14, 2003                       /s/ Leonard S. Jacob, M.D., Ph.D.
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Leonard S. Jacob, M.D., Ph.D.
                                            Chairman of the Board and
                                            Chief Executive Officer