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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 577 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 577

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 6, 2007

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 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''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 5, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
STATE v. PENALOSA.

COA05-1553.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 7, 2006.

Certification Date November 27, 2006.

Appeal from the Robeson (02CRS13621, 02CRS13622, 02CRS13625).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# L_2013228DE.01001401.xml

| 27.8.2013 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 228/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2013

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 228/14

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 651/2013 der Kommission vom 9. Juli 2013 zur Zulassung von Klinoptilolit sedimentären Ursprungs als Zusatzstoff in Futtermitteln für alle Tierarten und zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1810/2005

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 189 vom 10. Juli 2013
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 189 vom 10. Juli 2013

Im gesamten Text:

anstatt:

„Klinoptilolit“

muss es heißen:

„Klinoptilolith“.

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 916/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 916/2013 of 23 September 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 916/2013                     

# of 23 September 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, 23 September 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.
**Exhibit 11.1**

 

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

 

Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing our earningsattributable to common shares by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. 

 

Diluted earnings per share is computed by dividing our earnings attributable to common shares by the weighted average number of common shares, common equivalent shares and common shares assumedconverted from potentially dilutive securities outstanding during the period. 

 

For purposes of computing diluted earnings per share, common equivalent shares include the average number of common shares issuable upon the exercise of all employee stock options, if dilutive, less the common shares which could havebeen purchased at the average market price during the period with the assumed proceeds, including the “windfall” tax benefits, from the exercise of the options, awards and subscriptions.
STATE v. Christopher Edward GOSS.

No. 316A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 18, 2007.

Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, for Christopher Edward Goss.

William P. Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of April 2007 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 28th day of May 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of April 2007."
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1





ClubCorp, Inc.
Dallas, Texas

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re:  Registration Statements Nos. 33-89818, 33-96568, 333-08041 333-57107, and
     333-52612

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated July 19, 2002, related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report
is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.




                                             KPMG LLP



Dallas, Texas
July 26, 2002
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Young Broadcasting Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| November 12,  2003 |                     |
|-------------------------|--------------------------|
|                    |                     |
|                    |                     |
|                    | /s/  Vincent J. Young    |   |
|                    | Vincent  J. Young        |
|                    | Chief  Executive Officer |
|                    |                     |
|                    |                     |
|                    | /s/  James A. Morgan     |   |
|                    | James  A. Morgan         |
|                    | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
THAXTON v. STEVENS.

No. COA05-1347.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 5, 2006.

Certification Date September 25, 2006.

Appeal from Alamance (04CVS1057).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SAITAMA KANKON SOUSAI CENTER CO., LTD., a Foreign Corporation,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED YACHT TRANSPORT, LLC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2965

[September 27, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael L. Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-15-007859

(12).

Elio F. Martinez, Jr. and Robert R. Jimenez of Espinosa Martinez PL, 

Miami, for appellant.

Neil Bayer and Chase Jansson of Kennedys Americas, LLP, Miami, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, CONNER, JJ., and MIRMAN, LAWRENCE, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
STATE of North Carolina v. Alden Jerome HARDEN.

No. 427A94-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Nora Henry Hargrove, Margaret Creasy Ciardella, Hampstead, for Alden Jerome Harden.

Jill Ledford Cheek, Special Deputy Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 7th day of September 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 751/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 751/2013 of 29 July 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications (Kraški med (PDO))         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 751/2013                     

# of 29 July 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Kraški med (PDO))

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 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, Slovenia’s application to register the name ‘Kraški med’ 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, the name                              ‘Kraški med’ 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, 29 July 2013.

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

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

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

### **Class 1.4.****Other products of animal origin (eggs, honey, various dairy products except butter, etc.)**U.K.

#### SLOVENIAU.K.

Kraški med (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.                           

3

OJ C 290, 26.9.2012, p. 7.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6037

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PHILLIP CARL GUPTON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-13, CA-98-296-BO) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Phillip Carl Gupton, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Phillip Carl Gupton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Gupton , Nos. CR-93-13;CA-98-296-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 11, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case: 13-14065 Date Filed: 02/24/2015 Page: 1 of 6Case: 13-14065 Date Filed: 02/24/2015 Page: 2 of 6Case: 13-14065 Date Filed: 02/24/2015 Page: 3 of 6Case: 13-14065 Date Filed: 02/24/2015 Page: 4 of 6Case: 13-14065 Date Filed: 02/24/2015 Page: 5 of 6Case: 13-14065 Date Filed: 02/24/2015 Page: 6 of 6
S. 3180 

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 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 ‘‘June 30, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘July 

31, 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. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
STATE v. John Frank BOWEN.

No. 342P05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Young, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of June 2006 by Defendant for "Appeal of Right Under G.S. 7A-30(1)-Constitutional Questions and G.S. 7A-31-Discretionary Review":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of June 2006."
Exhibit






FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF SALE AND PURCHASE


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF SALE AND PURCHASE (this “Amendment”) is made as of this 8th day of July, 2016, by and between HR VENTURE PROPERTIES I LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as “Seller”), and NEW MARKET PROPERTIES, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as “Purchaser”).


W I T N E S S E T H  T H A T:


WHEREAS, Purchaser and Seller entered into that certain Agreement of Sale and Purchase dated as of June 24, 2016 (the “Contract”), with respect to certain property as more particularly described in the Contract (the “Property”); 


WHEREAS, Purchaser and Seller desire to amend the Contract as set forth below;


NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Purchaser and Seller hereby agree as follows:


1.    Defined Terms.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Contract.


2.    Contingency Date.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary provided in the Contract, Purchaser and Seller hereby acknowledge and agree that the “Contingency Date” shall mean July 11, 2016.


3.    Ratification.  Except as expressly modified hereby, the Contract shall remain unamended and in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed by the parties hereto.  


4.    Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


5.    Facsimile or E-Mail.  The faxed or e-mailed signature of any party shall be binding upon such party.




[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Purchaser and Seller have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the date indicated below.


SELLER:
HR VENTURE PROPERTIES I LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
By:    HR Retail Venture I LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, its sole member


By:    Hines REIT Retail Holdings LLC,
a Delaware limited liability 
company, its sole member




By: /s/ Shea Morgenroth        


Name: Shea Morgenroth        


Title: Manager                




PURCHASER:
NEW MARKET PROPERTIES, LLC, a Maryland 
limited liability company




By:/s/ Joel T. Murphy                


Name: Joel T. Murphy            


Title: Chief Executive Officer
STATE v. DAVIS.

No. COA05-1506.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 20, 2007.

Certification Date March 12, 2007.

Appeal from Gaston (03CRS25828, 03CRS64192, 03CRS64193, 03CRS67709).

Case reported without published opinion. No error; remanded for resentencing.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ERIC KENNEDY SMITH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3083

[May 3, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Elizabeth Scherer, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 76-4947 CF10A.

Eric Kennedy Smith, Miami, pro se.

No response required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 339/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 339/2013 of 15 April 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 339/2013                     

# of 15 April 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, 15 April 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 v. Dennis Marshall CLEMMONS.

No. 91A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Francis W. Crawley, Special Deputy Attorney General, Susan Doyle, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of April 2007 by Defendant to Withdraw as Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of May 2007."
STAFFORD CROSSING CONDOMINIUM ASS'N, INC. v. ROBINSON.

No. COA06-63.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 19, 2006.

Certification Date January 8, 2007.

Appeal from Henderson (05CVS639).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.